The efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in recurrent depressed patients with and without a current depressive episode: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

The study findings suggest that MBCT is as effective for patients with recurrent depression who are currently depressed as for patients who are in remission. Directions towards a better understanding of the mechanisms of action of MBCT are given, although future research is needed to support these hypotheses.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for patients with chronic, treatment-resistant depression: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial

“…This percentage is comparable to other studies on MBCT in chronic (27.8%; Michalak, Schultze, Heidenreich, & Schramm, 2015) or pharmacoresistant depressed patients (22.98%; Eisendrath et al., 2016), but seems to be higher than in studies focusing on patients with recurrent depression (8.8%; van Aalderen et al., 2011). Compared to completers, non‐completers reported a shorter duration of the current depressive episode and were more often unemployed.…”

“…Thereby this study provides much‐needed insight into the effectiveness rather than efficacy of MBCT, which was formulated as an important research goal in a recent review paper of MBCT (Dimidjian & Segal, 2015). However, the effect sizes found in this study (ITT: d  = 0.35; PP: d  = 0.45) are smaller than in previous preliminary studies of chronic or treatment‐resistant depressed patients (Barnhofer et al., 2009; Eisendrath et al., 2008; Kenny & Williams, 2007), as well as smaller than the effect size found in previous research on currently depressed patients ( d  = 0.53; van Aalderen et al., 2011), which was used for our power analysis. Both the relatively small effect size and the high drop‐out rate from MBCT can likely be explained by the higher severity of symptoms in the current study sample compared to previous research (van Aalderen et al., 2011).…”

“…However, the effect sizes found in this study (ITT: d  = 0.35; PP: d  = 0.45) are smaller than in previous preliminary studies of chronic or treatment‐resistant depressed patients (Barnhofer et al., 2009; Eisendrath et al., 2008; Kenny & Williams, 2007), as well as smaller than the effect size found in previous research on currently depressed patients ( d  = 0.53; van Aalderen et al., 2011), which was used for our power analysis. Both the relatively small effect size and the high drop‐out rate from MBCT can likely be explained by the higher severity of symptoms in the current study sample compared to previous research (van Aalderen et al., 2011). As only completers showed a significant decrease in depressive symptoms, obstacles to completing treatment should be investigated in future research, for example, by conducting qualitative interviews.…”

“…The power calculation was based on a Cohen's d effect size of 0.53 for currently depressed patients as reported in a previous study (van Aalderen et al., 2011). Based on an α of 0.05 and power of 80%, estimating the correlation between baseline and posttreatment scores to be 0.5, and expecting a drop‐out of 8 participants, a required sample size of 94 participants emerged (Cladder‐Micus et al., 2015).…”

Assessing treatments used to reduce rumination and/or worry: A systematic review

“…However, one study (Watkins et al, 2011) tested an intervention specifically designed to reduce rumination; and other studies stipulated that measuring change in rumination and/or worry was a primary aim (Andersson et al, 2012;Campbell, Labelle, Bacon, Faris, & Carlson, 2012;Ekkers et al, 2011;Jain et al, 2007;Wolitzky-Taylor & Telch, 2010). Most studies assessed change in either worry (N=9) or rumination (N=8), however two studies (Robins, Keng, Ekblad, & Brantley, 2012;van Aalderen et al, 2012) assessed change in worry and rumination.…”