Journal of consulting and clinical psychology最新文献

In their recent Viewpoint article, Beidas et al. (2023) argue that researchers should test psychosocial interventions in the contexts in which they are meant to be delivered and that they can accelerate the deployment of these interventions by advancing directly from pilot trials to effectiveness and implementation studies without conducting efficacy trials. In this commentary, we argue that this is a well-intended but problematic approach and that there is a more productive strategy for translational behavioral intervention research. The commentary discusses issues concerning intervention development, refinement, and optimization; pilot and efficacy testing of interventions; the contexts in which interventions are delivered; clinical practice guidelines; and quick versus programmatic answers to significant clinical research questions. Testing psychosocial interventions in the contexts in which they are meant to be delivered is a complex task for interventions that are designed to be used in a wide variety of contexts. Nevertheless, interventions can be tested in the contexts in which they are meant to be delivered without sacrificing programmatic intervention development or safety and efficacy testing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Replies to comments made by Kenneth E. Freedland et al. (see record 2024-89430-002) on Rinad S. Beida, Lisa Saldana, and Rachel C. Shelton's original article (see record 2023-46817-001). In reading Freedland et al.'s (2024) commentary, it appears that their lens prioritizes internal validity and more explanatory and mechanistic work. While we also value these scientific goals and concur that the approaches they identify are clearly methodologically rigorous, we do not think the approaches will substantially reduce the unacceptable translation gap or address the fundamental issues of context. Our approach recognizes that there is tremendous value in cocreating solutions and interventions with patients, clinicians, and community members in the settings where we are seeking to promote health and address health inequities, and questions traditional assumptions and paradigms that scientists "know best" have effective solutions or should hold all of the power and knowledge (Brownson et al., 2022; Sanchez et al., 2023; Shelton, Adsul, & Oh, 2021; Shelton, Adsul, Oh, et al., 2021). We believe it is critical that we expand the pathways through which we advance intervention science in a meaningful and impactful way, and with more explicit attention to issues of context, equity, engagement, and external validity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Evidence on the optimal "dose" of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for treating major depressive disorder is sparse. This analysis aimed to evaluate the dose-response curve in CBT using a nonlinear approach, whereby "dose" was defined as number of treatment sessions. The dose-response curve of CBT was compared to other psychotherapies and pharmacological treatments for depression.

Method: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of CBT in adults with acute depression was conducted. Treatment arms examining other psychosocial or pharmacological interventions were also analyzed. Cubic spline metaregression techniques were used to model nonlinear dose-response curves.

Results: Seventy-two studies and 7,377 participants were included. Modeling the dose-response curve between change of depression symptom severity and the number of CBT sessions resulted in a nonlinear curve characterized by a strong improvement in symptom severity from baseline within the first eight sessions. Symptom reduction continues in the further course of the treatment, but at a slower pace. A similar pattern of symptom development was found for other therapies as well, although the prominence of early improvement and overall effect sizes vary across treatment arms.

Conclusion: Results imply a general tendency for the strongest alleviation of depressive symptom severity in early stages of CBT treatment, thus, if aiming at symptom alleviation, speak for short CBT interventions. However, these findings have to be discussed in the light of the limited data regarding the sustainability of treatment effects in short-term therapies and effects beyond symptomatic changes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objectives: In this study, the effectiveness of a couples-based group intervention to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV), Strength at Home Couples (SAH-C), was examined on a military installation relative to a comparison intervention, Supportive Prevention (SP). It was expected that greater reductions in use of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV behaviors, as well as reduced suicidality, would be found among service members and their partners in SAH-C relative to SP.

Method: Participants included 138 couples randomized to SAH-C and SP through a clinical controlled trial embedded in a hybrid effectiveness implementation study which took place on a military installation. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales and Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse were used to measure IPV, and 13 Military Suicide Research Consortium common data elements were used to assess suicidality.

Results: Service members randomized to SAH-C evidenced greater reductions based on effect sizes across the assessment time points for all IPV variables, including use of overall physical IPV, severe physical IPV, sexual IPV, psychological IPV, and coercive control IPV relative to those randomized to SP. Partners of service members demonstrated a similar general pattern for reductions in use of IPV, but findings were not as robust as for service members. Both service members and partners demonstrated greater reductions in suicidality based on effect sizes when randomized to SAH-C relative to SP.

Conclusions: Findings extend prior work demonstrating the promising effects of SAH-C delivered in the military context and highlight the possible benefits of SAH-C in preventing self-harm thoughts and behaviors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Positive and negative affect play critical roles in depression and anxiety treatment, but the dynamic processes of how affect changes over treatment in relation to changes in symptoms is unclear. The study goal was to examine relationships among changes in positive and negative affect with changes in depression and anxiety symptoms.

Method: This secondary analysis used a combined sample (N = 196) of two trials (Craske et al., 2019, 2023) comparing positive affect treatment (PAT) to negative affect treatment. Longitudinal cross-lag panel models explored whether changes in positive and negative affect (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; Watson et al., 1988) predicted subsequent changes in depression and anxiety symptoms (Depression Anxiety Stress Scales; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), whether symptoms predicted subsequent changes in affect, and whether treatment condition moderated these relationships.

Results: Increases in positive affect predicted subsequent decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms, regardless of treatment condition. Symptoms did not reciprocally predict changes in positive affect. For individuals in PAT, decreases in negative affect predicted subsequent decreases in symptoms. Moreover, decreases in symptoms predicted subsequent decreases in negative affect, regardless of treatment condition.

Conclusions: Results did not support a reciprocal relationship between positive affect and symptoms of depression and anxiety since positive affect predicted depression and anxiety symptoms but not vice versa. Results supported a reciprocal relationship between negative affect and symptoms of depression and anxiety since negative affect predicted depression and anxiety symptoms in PAT, and depression and anxiety symptoms predicted negative affect in both treatment conditions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Digital stress interventions could be helpful as an "indirect" treatment for depression, but it remains unclear for whom this is a viable option. In this study, we developed models predicting individualized benefits of a digital stress intervention on depressive symptoms at 6-month follow-up.

Method: Data of N = 1,525 patients with depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies' Depression Scale, CES-D ≥ 16) from k = 6 randomized trials (digital stress intervention vs. waitlist) were collected. Prognostic models were developed using multilevel least absolute shrinkage and selection operator and boosting algorithms, and were validated using bootstrap bias correction and internal-external cross-validation. Subsequently, expected effects among those with and without a treatment recommendation were estimated based on clinically derived treatment assignment cut points.

Results: Performances ranged from R² = 21.0%-23.4%, decreasing only slightly after model optimism correction (R² = 17.0%-19.6%). Predictions were greatly improved by including an interim assessment of depressive symptoms (optimism-corrected R2 = 32.6%-35.6%). Using a minimally important difference of d = -0.24 as assignment cut point, approximately 84.6%-93.3% of patients are helped by this type of intervention, while the remaining 6.7%-15.4% would experience clinically negligible benefits (δ^ = -0.02 to -0.19). Using reliable change as cut point, a smaller subset (39.3%-46.2%) with substantial expected benefits (δ^ = -0.68) receives a treatment recommendation.

Conclusions: Meta-analytic prognostic models applied to individual participant data can be used to predict differential benefits of a digital stress intervention as an indirect treatment for depression. While most patients seem to benefit, the developed models could be helpful as a screening tool to identify those for whom a more intensive depression treatment is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: This is a randomized controlled trial (NCT03056157) of an enhanced adaptive disclosure (AD) psychotherapy compared to present-centered therapy (PCT; each 12 sessions) in 174 veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to traumatic loss (TL) and moral injury (MI). AD employs different strategies for different trauma types. AD-Enhanced (AD-E) uses letter writing (e.g., to the deceased), loving-kindness meditation, and bolstered homework to facilitate improved functioning to repair TL and MI-related trauma.

Method: The primary outcomes were the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), evaluated at baseline, throughout treatment, and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups (Brief Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning was also administered), the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-5), the Dimensions of Anger Reactions, the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale, and the Quick Drinking Screen.

Results: There were statistically significant between-group differences on two outcomes: The intent-to-treat (ITT) mixed-model analysis of SDS scores indicated greater improvement from baseline to posttreatment in the AD-E group (d = 2.97) compared to the PCT group, d = 1.86; -2.36, 95% CI [-3.92, -0.77], t(1,510) = -2.92, p < .001, d = 0.15. Twenty-one percent more AD-E cases made clinically significant changes on the SDS than PCT cases. From baseline to posttreatment, AD-E was also more efficacious on the CAPS-5 (d = 0.39). These differential effects did not persist at follow-up intervals.

Conclusion: This was the first psychotherapy of veterans with TL/MI-related PTSD to show superiority relative to PCT with respect to functioning and PTSD, although the differential effect sizes were small to medium and not maintained at follow-up. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Sleep and circadian disturbance is highly comorbid with a range of psychological disorders, especially major depressive disorder (MDD). In view of the complexity of sleep and circadian problems in MDD, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a group-based transdiagnostic intervention for sleep and circadian dysfunction (TranS-C) for improving depressive symptoms and sleep and circadian functions.

Method: One hundred fifty-two adults diagnosed with comorbid MDD and sleep and circadian dysfunctions were randomized into TranS-C group treatment (TranS-C; n = 77) or care as usual (CAU; n = 75) control group. The TranS-C group received six weekly 2-hr group sessions of TranS-C, whereas the CAU group continued to receive usual care. Assessments were at baseline, immediate (Week 7), and 12-week (Week 19) posttreatment. Primary and secondary outcomes included depression, anxiety, sleep disturbances, fatigue, quality of life, and functional impairment.

Results: The TranS-C group showed significant improvement in depressive symptoms (p < .001, d = 0.84), insomnia severity (p < .001, d = 0.77), sleep disturbances (p < .001, d = 1.15), sleep-related impairment (p < .001, d = 1.22), fatigue (p < .001, d = 1.06), anxiety symptoms (p = .004, d = 0.67), quality of life (p < .001, d = 0.71), and sleep diary-derived parameters (ps < .05, d = 0.12-0.77) relative to the CAU group at immediate posttreatment. These treatment gains remained significant at 12-week follow-up. Significant improvement in functional impairment was also noted at 12-week follow-up.

Conclusions: TranS-C was efficacious and acceptable in alleviating depressive symptoms and sleep and circadian disruptions in adults with MDD. The group format appears to be a low-cost, widely disseminable option to deliver TranS-C. Further research on TranS-C to examine its benefits on other psychiatric disorders is warranted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: This study aimed to provide evidence for treatment credibility (TC) as a potential mechanism of change in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Therefore, it focused on within-person effects that are free of the influence of stable characteristics and thus allow to exclude certain alternative explanations for the association under study.

Method: The sample included 1,423 patients receiving outpatient CBT, who presented a wide variety of psychiatric diagnoses (mostly affective and anxiety disorders). TC, depression, and anxiety were measured every fifth session from Session 5 to 25 using the Credibility Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and the General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), respectively. Symptom severity was assessed every session using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-11. Within- and between-person effects of TC, depression, and anxiety were analyzed using the latent curve model with structured residuals (LCM-SRs). In exploratory analyses, within-person effects of TC on next-session symptom severity were assessed using a modification of the LCM-SR.

Results: LCM-SRs exhibited excellent fit in main analyses. There were significant negative correlations of both intercepts and slopes (between-person level) of CEQ and PHQ-9 as well GAD-7. No significant cross-lagged effects (within-person level) were found over the five-session interval. However, session-wise analyses revealed significant cross-lagged effects of CEQ on Hopkins Symptom Checklist-11.

Conclusions: This study is the first to find significant within-person effects of TC in session-wise analyses. This lends preliminary support to the notion of TC as a mechanism of change. The lack of significant findings at the five-session interval is discussed considering the specific design used in this study. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).