4.2 Review

Cognitive Therapy in the Treatment and Prevention of Depression: A Fifty-Year Retrospective with an Evolutionary Coda

期刊

COGNITIVE THERAPY AND RESEARCH
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 402-417

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10608-020-10132-1

关键词

Cognitive therapy; Enduring effects; Antidepressant medications; Iatrogenic effects; Evolved adaptation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the 50 years since the introduction of cognitive therapy, it has been shown to be equally effective as antidepressant medications in the acute treatment of nonpsychotic depression. Cognitive therapy facilitates cortical regulation of affect processes, while medications dampen the stress response. Depression may be an evolved adaptation to encourage problem-solving, so interventions that facilitate problem-solving are likely more beneficial.
In the 50 years since it was first introduced, cognitive therapy has been shown to be as efficacious as antidepressant medications (on average) in the acute treatment of nonpsychotic depression, although some patients will do better on one than on the other. Moreover, patients treated to remission with cognitive therapy are less than half as likely to relapse following treatment termination as patients treated to remission with medications. However, a recent study suggests that adding medications interferes with any such enduring effect and medications themselves may have an iatrogenic effect that suppresses symptoms at the expense of prolonging the underlying episode. Neural imaging suggests that cognitive therapy works from the top down to facilitate cortical regulation of affect processes whereas medications work from the bottom up to dampen the stress response. Adaptationist theory suggests that depression is an evolved adaptation that served to keep our ancestors ruminating about complex social problems until they arrived at a solution; if true then any intervention that facilitates problem solving is likely preferable to one that merely anesthetizes distress.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据