BackgroundMany psychotherapy theories emphasise the importance of self-schema and other-schema, but most previous studies focused on the explicit self-schema in major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the limited studies of implicit self-schema in MDD have shown inconsistencies in their findings. Furthermore, only a few studies have investigated the implicit other-schema, and the pathway illustrating how implicit schemas influence depression remains unclear.AimsThe primary aim of our study was to explore the characteristics of implicit self-schema and other-schema in patients with MDD. We also examine the chain-mediating effect of attachment relationships and interpersonal trust.MethodsThe present study included 88 patients with MDD and 88 healthy controls (HCs). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17, Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory—Revised Questionnaire, Trust Scale and the Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST) were used to assess depressive symptoms, attachment relationships, interpersonal trust and implicit schemas, respectively. Paired sample t-test was used to compare the reaction time (RT) for positive and negative words within the two groups. Analysis of covariance was used to explore the difference between two groups from the perspective of implicit schemas and interpersonal patterns. The chain mediation model was verified by bootstrap.Results(1) For interpersonal patterns, patients with MDD scored significantly higher on attachment anxiety (F=82.150, p<0.001) and attachment avoidance (F=23.192, p<0.001) and scored significantly lower on the predictability (F=30.297, p<0.001), dependence (F=39.728, p<0.001) and faith (F=60.997, p<0.001) dimensions of interpersonal trust. (2) As for implicit schemas, no significant difference was found between the RT for positive self-words and negative self-words in patients with MDD (t=−1.056, p=0.294). However, the HC responded faster to positive self-words than negative self-words (t=−3.286, p=0.001). The RT for positive other-words and negative other-words were significantly different in both patients with MDD (t=2.943, p=0.004) and HCs (t=−2.482, p=0.015), with opposite directions. The EAST effect of other-schema in patients with MDD was significantly different from that in HCs (F=13.051, p<0.001). (3) For the total sample, the EAST effect of other-schema significantly correlated with attachment avoidance, interpersonal trust and depressive symptoms. Attachment avoidance and interpersonal trust were the chain mediators between the EAST effect of other-schema and depressive symptoms (95% CI: −0.090 to −0.008). However, no significant results were found for the EAST effect of other-schema when correlation and mediation analyses were performed for HCs and patients with MDD separately.ConclusionsThis study verified that patients with MDD have abnormal interpersonal patterns and negative implicit schemas. However, no mediating effect of attachment relationships and interpersonal trust was found.

No abstract

BackgroundThe significance of implicit self-schema and other-schema in major depressive disorder (MDD) is highlighted by both cognitive theory and attachment theory. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the behavioral and event-related potential (ERP) characteristics of implicit schemas in MDD patients.MethodsThe current study recruited 40 patients with MDD and 33 healthy controls (HCs). The participants were screened for mental disorders using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale-14 were employed to assess the clinical symptoms. Extrinsic Affective Simon Task (EAST) was conducted to measure the characteristics of implicit schemas. Meanwhile, reaction time and electroencephalogram data were recorded.ResultsBehavioral indexes showed that HCs responded faster to positive self and positive others than negative self (t = −3.304, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.575) and negative others (t = −3.155, p = 0.003, Cohen’s d = 0.549), respectively. However, MDD did not show this pattern (p &gt; 0.05). The difference in other-EAST effect between HCs and MDD was significant (t = 2.937, p = 0.004, Cohen’s d = 0.691). The ERP indicators of self-schema showed that under the condition of positive self, the mean amplitude of LPP in MDD was significantly smaller than that in HCs (t = −2.180, p = 0.034, Cohen’s d = 0.902). The ERP indexes of other-schema showed that HCs had a larger absolute value of N200 peak amplitude for negative others (t = 2.950, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.584) and a larger P300 peak amplitude for positive others (t = 2.185, p = 0.033, Cohen’s d = 0.433). The above patterns were not shown in MDD (p &gt; 0.05). The comparison between groups found that under the condition of negative others, the absolute value of N200 peak amplitude in HCs was larger than that in MDD (t = 2.833, p = 0.006, Cohen’s d = 1.404); under the condition of positive others, the P300 peak amplitude (t = −2.906, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 1.602) and LPP amplitude (t = −2.367, p = 0.022, Cohen’s d = 1.100) in MDD were smaller than that in HCs.ConclusionPatients with MDD lack positive self-schema and positive other-schema. Implicit other-schema might be related to abnormalities in both the early automatic processing stage and the late elaborate processing stage, while the implicit self-schema might be related only to the abnormality in the late elaborate processing stage.

Background Dynamic interpersonal therapy (DIT) is a brief, structured psychodynamic psychotherapy with demonstrated efficacy in treating major depressive disorder (MDD). The aim of the study was to determine whether DIT is an acceptable and efficacious treatment for MDD patients in China. Method Patients were randomized to 16-week treatments with either DIT plus antidepressant medication (DIT + ADM; n = 66), general supportive therapy plus antidepressant medication (GST + ADM; n = 75) or antidepressant medication alone (ADM; n = 70). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) administered by blind raters was the primary efficacy measure. Assessments were completed during the acute 16-week treatment and up to 12-month posttreatment. Results The group × time interaction was significant for the primary outcome HAMD (F = 2.900, df1 = 10, df2 = 774.72, p = 0.001) in the acute treatment phase. Pairwise comparisons showed a benefit of DIT + ADM over ADM at weeks 12 [least-squares (LS) mean difference = −3.161, p = 0.007] and 16 (LS mean difference = −3.237, p = 0.004). Because of the unexpected high attrition during the posttreatment follow-up phase, analyses of follow-up data were considered exploratory. Differences between DIT + ADM and ADM remained significant at the 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up (ps range from 0.001 to 0.027). DIT + ADM had no advantage over GST + ADM during the acute treatment phase. However, at the 12-month follow-up, patients who received DIT remained less depressed. Conclusions Acute treatment with DIT or GST in combination with ADM was similarly efficacious in reducing depressive symptoms and yielded a better outcome than ADM alone. DIT may provide MDD patients with long-term benefits in symptom improvement but results must be viewed with caution.