Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-5pczc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:10:08.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patient predictors of response to interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behaviour therapy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

J Carter ,
C Frampton ,
J McKenzie ,
R Mulder ,
S Luty  and
P Joyce
J Carter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury
C Frampton
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
J McKenzie
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
R Mulder
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
S Luty
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
P Joyce
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 245 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Aim:

The aim of this study was to identify patient factors associated with response to cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in adults with major depression.

Background:

Very little is known about the patient characteristics associated with response to CBT and IPT. Certain patient characteristics may be general prognostic indicators of response, irrespective of therapy type; however, there may also be other specific patient characteristics that are indicators of response to a specific treatment type (CBT vs. IPT).

Methods:

After providing informed written consent, 177 adults with major depression (DSM-IV) were randomized to receive 16 weekly sessions of either CBT or IPT. Patient characteristics were assessed prior to randomization. Outcome at the end of the weekly sessions was defined as percentage improvement on the clinician-rated Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), which takes account of initial depression severity.

Results:

Factors associated with greater percentage improvement on the MADRS over the course of therapy included receiving CBT, having a single episode of depression and a perception that the therapy (irrespective of treatment type) was logical. Individuals who had co-morbid personality disorder symptomatology had higher per cent improvement over the course of treatment if they received CBT (60%) rather than IPT (30%).

Conclusions:

Despite examination of a number of potential predictors of differential response to CBT and IPT, few were significant. However, this study suggests that CBT is a better treatment option for depressed patients with comorbid personality disorder than IPT.