4.4 Article

Distress and anhedonia as predictors of depression treatment outcome: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 125, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2019.103507

关键词

Distress; Anhedonia; MASQ; Depression; Treatment outcome

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH60713, MH01697, MH60998]
  2. Office of Academic Affiliations, Advanced Fellowship Program in Mental Illness Research and Treatment, Department of Veterans Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two core features of depression include depressed mood (heightened distress) and anhedonia (reduced pleasure). Despite their centrality to depression, studies have not examined their contribution to treatment outcomes in a randomized clinical trial providing mainstream treatments like antidepressant medications (ADM) and cognitive therapy (CT). We used baseline distress and anhedonia derived from a factor analysis of the Mood and Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire to predict remission and recovery in 433 individuals with recurrent/chronic major depressive disorder. Patients were provided with only ADM or both ADM and CT. Overall, higher baseline distress and anhedonia predicted longer times to remission within one year and recovery within three years. When controlling for treatment condition, distress improved prediction of outcomes over and above anhedonia, while anhedonia did not improve prediction of outcomes over and above distress. Interactions with treatment condition demonstrated that individuals with higher distress and anhedonia benefited from receiving CT in addition to ADM, whereas there was no added benefit of CT for individuals with lower distress and anhedonia. Assessing distress and anhedonia prior to treatment may help select patients who will benefit most from CT in addition to ADM. For the treatments and outcome measures tested, utilizing distress to guide treatment planning may yield the greatest benefit.

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

4.4
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