4.5 Article

A Randomized effectiveness trial of brief cognitive-behavioral therapy for depressed adolescents receiving antidepressant medication

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0890-8567(09)62194-8

Keywords

depression; cognitive-behavioral therapy; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor

Funding

  1. AHRQ HHS [R01-HS10535, HS13854] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test a collaborative-care, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program adjunctive to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment in HMO pediatric primary care. Method: A randomized effectiveness trial comparing a treatment-as-usual (TAU) control condition consisting primarily of SSRI medication delivered outside the experimental protocol (n = 75) versus TAU SSRI plus brief CBT (n = 77). Participants were identified by a recent dispense of SSRI medication followed by telephone screening. Adolescents with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (n = 152) were enrolled. The CBT program employed cognitive restructuring and/or behavioral activation training. Therapists consulted with prescribing pediatricians to improve medication adherence. Results: Through 1-year follow-up, the authors found CBT advantages on the Short Form-12 Mental Component Scale (p = .04), reductions in TAU outpatient visits (p = .02), and days' supply of all medications (p = .01). No effects were detected for major depressive disorder episodes; a nonsignificant trend favoring CBT was detected on the Center for Epidemiology Depression Scale (p = .07). Conclusions: The authors detected a weak CBT effect, possibly rendered less significant by the small sample and likely attenuated by the unexpected reduction in SSRI pharmacotherapy in the CBT condition. Small, incremental improvements over monotherapy, such as observed in this study, most likely represent the new norm in adolescent depression treatment research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available