4.3 Article

Outcome of adolescent depression: 6 months after treatment

Journal

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 232-239

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00048674.2010.538838

Keywords

depression; adolescent; treatment outcome; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Human Services Victoria Mental Health Branch
  2. Australian Rotary Health Research Fund
  3. Department of Human Services Barwon Region
  4. Commonwealth Department of Health
  5. Aged Care
  6. NHMRC [990154]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Method: A total of 130 adolescents (aged 12 to 18 years) who had been clinically referred for treatment with a DSM-IV major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder or minor depression were treated with either CBT, sertraline, their combination or supportive psychotherapy, in two randomized clinical trials using the same assessment instruments. Assessments in both studies were conducted at initial assessment, three months later at the conclusion of treatment, and at 6-month follow up. The data of these two trials were pooled. The primary outcome measures were the presence of a depressive disorder and the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS) score at 6-month follow up. Results: At baseline, only the Self Efficacy Questionnaire for Depressed Adolescents (SEQ-DA) predicted depression at 6-month follow up. Individual measures following 3 months of acute treatment that predicted depression at 6-month follow up were SEQ-DA, RADS, Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale-total score, Global Assessment of Function, adolescent-rated Family Assessment Device General Functioning Subscale and adolescent-rated Visual Analogue Scores of mood states. Conclusion: Clinical variables as reported by the adolescent and identified by the clinician at baseline assessment and following 3 months of treatment predicted depression at 6-month follow up. No demographic variables were predictive of depression at 6-month follow up.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available