Cognitive-emotional training may represent a feasible and effective intervention strategy for MDD. This proof-of-concept study highlights the need for future studies to fully understand the effectiveness, and mechanisms of effect, of these training strategies.
Objective
The evolution toward more stringent conceptualizations of remission in family therapy for adolescent anorexia nervosa (AN) has, with time, introduced variability in outcomes across randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An examination of remission across the history of research on family therapy for AN shows that earlier studies adopted lenient definitions and generally yielded higher rates of remission than studies of the past decade that have used stricter definitions of remission. In this study, we investigate the reactivity of remission rates to the application of different definitions of remission used within the family therapy for AN literature, within a single RCT data set.
Method
We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a single‐site RCT which compared the relative efficacy of two formats of family therapy in a sample of 106 Australian adolescents with AN. Using end‐of‐treatment data, we compared remission rates using 11 definitions of remission that have been used in studies of family therapy for AN spanning more than three decades.
Results
We found wide variability in remission rates (21.7–87.7%; Cochran's Q χ2(10, N = 106) = 303.55, p = .000], depending on which definition of remission was applied. As expected, more lenient criteria produced higher remission rates than more stringent definitions.
Discussion
Applying different criteria of remission to a single data set illustrates the impact of changing how remission is defined. Failure to consider the greater stringency of remission criteria in recent studies could result in false inferences concerning the efficacy of family therapy for AN over time.
There is an urgent need for more effective treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). Digital therapeutics, such as computerized cognitive–emotional training interventions, represent a promising new strategy for treating MDD. Here we report a replication of efficacy of a digital cognitive–emotional training intervention designed to enhance cognitive control for emotional information-processing. In a randomized, double-blind, controlled study design, 51 participants with MDD in a current major depressive episode were randomly assigned to participate in a digital cognitive–emotional training regimen (Emotional Faces Memory Task (EFMT);
n
= 28) involving 18 sessions over 6 weeks, or an active control condition (CT;
n
= 23) involving computerized working memory training. MDD symptoms were assessed weekly using a clinician-rated measure (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; Ham-D); and neurocognition (working memory), at baseline and study outcome. Mixed-effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis of all participants randomized revealed a significantly greater reduction in MDD symptom severity (Ham-D) from baseline to outcome in the EFMT group (8.65 points) compared to the CT group (4.77 points) (
F
(6,205) = 3.23,
p
= .005,
d
= 0.46). Ten of 28 EFMT participants achieved clinical response (≥50% reduction in symptoms) compared to 4 of 23 in CT. Both groups exhibited similar, small improvements in working memory. This replicated the preliminary efficacy of a digital cognitive–emotional training approach for the treatment of MDD. EFMT may be a feasible and effective intervention strategy for MDD, but future studies to elucidate its mechanism of action are warranted. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT: 01934491).
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.