SummaryBackgroundAlthough structured psychological treatments are recommended as first-line interventions for depression, only a small fraction of people globally receive these treatments because of poor access in routine primary care. We assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a brief psychological treatment (Healthy Activity Program [HAP]) for delivery by lay counsellors to patients with moderately severe to severe depression in primary health-care settings.MethodsIn this randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants aged 18–65 years scoring more than 14 on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) indicating moderately severe to severe depression from ten primary health centres in Goa, India. Pregnant women or patients who needed urgent medical attention or were unable to communicate clearly were not eligible. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to enhanced usual care (EUC) alone or EUC combined with HAP in randomly sized blocks (block size four to six [two to four for men]), stratified by primary health centre and sex, and allocation was concealed with use of sequential numbered opaque envelopes. Physicians providing EUC were masked. Primary outcomes were depression symptom severity on the Beck Depression Inventory version II and remission from depression (PHQ-9 score of <10) at 3 months in the intention-to-treat population, assessed by masked field researchers. Secondary outcomes were disability, days unable to work, behavioural activation, suicidal thoughts or attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of illness. We assessed serious adverse events in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN95149997.FindingsBetween Oct 28, 2013, and July 29, 2015, we enrolled and randomly allocated 495 participants (247 [50%] to the EUC plus HAP group [two of whom were subsequently excluded because of protocol violations] and 248 [50%] to the EUC alone group), of whom 466 (95%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (230 [49%] in the EUC plus HAP group and 236 [51%] in the EUC alone group). Participants in the EUC plus HAP group had significantly lower symptom severity (Beck Depression Inventory version II in EUC plus HAP group 19·99 [SD 15·70] vs 27·52 [13·26] in EUC alone group; adjusted mean difference −7·57 [95% CI −10·27 to −4·86]; p<0·0001) and higher remission (147 [64%] of 230 had a PHQ-9 score of <10 in the HAP plus EUC group vs 91 [39%] of 236 in the EUC alone group; adjusted prevalence ratio 1·61 [1·34–1·93]) than did those in the EUC alone group. EUC plus HAP showed better results than did EUC alone for the secondary outcomes of disability (adjusted mean difference −2·73 [–4·39 to −1·06]; p=0·001), days out of work (−2·29 [–3·84 to −0·73]; p=0·004), intimate partner physical violence in women (0·53 [0·29–0·96]; p=0·04), behavioural activation (2·17 [1·34–3·00]; p<0·0001), and suicidal thoughts or attempts (0·61 [0·45–0·83]; p=0·001). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $933...

It is not clear if treatments for depression targeting repetitive negative thinking (RNT: rumination, worry and content-independent perseverative thinking) have a specific effect on RNT resulting in better outcomes than treatments that do not specifically target rumination. We conducted a systematic search of PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized trials in adolescents, adults and older adults comparing CBT treatments for (previous) depression with control groups or with other treatments and reporting outcomes on RNT. Inclusion criteria were met by 36 studies with a total of 3307 participants. At post-test we found a medium-sized effect of any treatment compared to control groups on RNT (g = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.37-0.59). Rumination-focused CBT: g = 0.76, <0.01; Cognitive Control Training: g = 0.62, p < .01; CBT: g = 0.57, p < .01; Concreteness training: g = 0.53, p < .05; and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy: g = 0.42, p < .05 had medium sized and significantly larger effect sizes than other types of treatment (i.e., anti-depressant medication, light therapy, engagement counseling, life review, expressive writing, yoga) (g = 0.14) compared to control groups. Effects on RNT at post-test were strongly associated with the effects on depression severity and this association was only significant in RNT-focused CBT. Our results suggest that in particular RNT-focused CBT may have a more pronounced effect on RNT than other types of interventions. Further mediation and mechanistic studies to test the predictive value of reductions in RNT following RNT-focused CBT for subsequent depression outcomes are called for.

Psychological therapies reduce GI symptoms in adults with IBS. These effects remained significant and medium in magnitude after short-term and long-term follow-up periods.

No abstract

Background: Subgrouping methods have the potential to support treatment decision making for patients with depression. Such approaches have not been used to study the continued course of depression or likelihood of relapse following treatment. Method: Data from individual participants of seven randomised controlled trials were analysed. Latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups based on baseline characteristics. Associations between profiles and odds of both continued chronic depression and relapse up to one year post-treatment were explored. Differences in outcomes were investigated within profiles for those treated with antidepressants, psychological therapy, and usual care. Results: Seven profiles were identified; profiles with higher symptom severity and long durations of both anxiety and depression at baseline were at higher risk of relapse and of chronic depression. Members of profile five (likely long durations of depression and anxiety, moderately-severe symptoms, and past antidepressant use) appeared to have better outcomes with psychological therapies: antidepressants vs. psychological therapies (OR (95% CI) for relapse = 2.92 (1.24–6.87), chronic course = 2.27 (1.27–4.06)) and usual care vs. psychological therapies (relapse = 2.51 (1.16–5.40), chronic course = 1.98 (1.16–3.37)). Conclusions: Profiles at greater risk of poor outcomes could benefit from more intensive treatment and frequent monitoring. Patients in profile five may benefit more from psychological therapies than other treatments.