EPRESSION IS COMMON, WITHthe 1-year prevalence rate of major depressive disorder estimated at between 6.6% and 10.3% in the general population 1,2 and roughly 25% of all primary care visits involving patients with clinically significant levels of depression. 3 Psychotherapy is effective at treating depression, 4 and most primary care patients prefer psychotherapy to antidepressant medication. 5 When referred for psychotherapy, however, only a small percentage of patients follow through. 6 Attrition from psychotherapy in randomized controlled trials is often 30% or greater 7 and can exceed 50% in clinical practice. 8 The discrepancy between patients' preference for psychotherapy and the low rates of initiation and adherence is likely due to access barriers. Approximately 75% of depressed primary care patients report barriers that make it extremely difficult or impossible to attend regular psychotherapy sessions. 9,10 These barriers are largely structural and include time constraints, lack of available and accessible services, transportation problems, and cost.
In spite of repeated calls for research and interventions to overcome individual and systemic barriers to psychological treatments, little is known about the nature of these barriers. To develop a measure of perceived barriers to psychological treatment (PBPT), items derived from 260 participants were administered to 658 primary care patients. Exploratory factor analysis on half the sample resulted in 8 factors, which were supported by confirmatory factor analysis conducted on the other half. Associations generally supported the criterion validity of PBPT scales, with self-reported concurrent use of psychotherapy and psychotherapy attendance in the year after PBPT administration. Depression was associated with greater endorsement of barriers. These findings suggest that the PBPT may be useful in assessing perceived barriers.
BackgroundWeb-based interventions for depression that are supported by coaching have generally produced larger effect-sizes, relative to standalone web-based interventions. This is likely due to the effect of coaching on adherence. We evaluated the efficacy of a manualized telephone coaching intervention (TeleCoach) aimed at improving adherence to a web-based intervention (moodManager), as well as the relationship between adherence and depressive symptom outcomes.Methods101 patients with MDD, recruited from primary care, were randomized to 12 weeks moodManager+TeleCoach, 12 weeks of self-directed moodManager, or 6 weeks of a waitlist control (WLC). Depressive symptom severity was measured using the PHQ-9.ResultsTeleCoach+moodManager, compared to self-directed moodManager, resulted in significantly greater numbers of login days (p = 0.01), greater time until last use (p = 0.007), greater use of lessons (p = 0.03), greater variety of interactive tools used (p = 0.02), but total instances of tool use did not reach statistical significance. (p = 0.07). TeleCoach+moodManager produced significantly lower PHQ-9 scores relative to WLC at week 6 (p = 0.04), but there were no other significant differences in PHQ-9 scores at weeks 6 or 12 (ps>0.20) across treatment arms. Baseline PHQ-9 scores were no significantly related to adherence to moodManager.ConclusionsTeleCoach produced significantly greater adherence to moodManager, relative to self-directed moodManager. TeleCoached moodManager produced greater reductions in depressive symptoms relative to WLC, however, there were no statistically significant differences relative to self-directed moodManager. While greater use was associated with better outcomes, most users in both TeleCoach and self-directed moodManager had dropped out of treatment by week 12. Even with telephone coaching, adherence to web-based interventions for depression remains a challenge. Methods of improving coaching models are discussed.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00719979
Background-Little is known about the acceptability of internet and telephone treatments, or what factors might influence patient interest in receiving treatments via these media.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.