ObjectivesThe notion of intrapsychic conflict has been present in psychopathology for more than a century within different theoretical orientations. However, internal conflicts have not received enough empirical attention, nor has their importance in depression been fully elaborated. This study is based on the notion of cognitive conflict, understood as implicative dilemma (ID), and on a new way of identifying these conflicts by means of the Repertory Grid Technique. Our aim was to explore the relevance of cognitive conflicts among depressive patients.DesignComparison between persons with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and community controls.MethodsA total of 161 patients with major depression and 110 non-depressed participants were assessed for presence of IDs and level of symptom severity. The content of these cognitive conflicts was also analysed.ResultsRepertory grid analysis indicated conflict (presence of ID/s) in a greater proportion of depressive patients than in controls. Taking only those grids with conflict, the average number of IDs per person was higher in the depression group.In addition, participants with cognitive conflicts displayed higher symptom severity. Within the clinical sample, patients with IDs presented lower levels of global functioning and a more frequent history of suicide attempts.ConclusionsCognitive conflicts were more prevalent in depressive patients and were associated with clinical severity. Conflict assessment at pre-therapy could aid in treatment planning to fit patient characteristics.Practitioner points Internal conflicts have been postulated in clinical psychology for a long time but there is little evidence about its relevance due to the lack of methods to measure them. We developed a method for identifying conflicts using the Repertory Grid Technique. Depressive patients have higher presence and number of conflicts than controls. Conflicts (implicative dilemmas) can be a new target for intervention in depression. Cautions/Limitations A cross-sectional design precluded causal conclusions. The role of implicative dilemmas in the causation or maintenance of depression cannot be ascertained from this study.

ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to assess the reliability and validity of the Spanish translation of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure, a 34-item self-report questionnaire that measures the client’s status in the domains of Subjective well-being, Problems/Symptoms, Life functioning, and Risk.MethodSix hundred and forty-four adult participants were included in two samples: the clinical sample (n=192) from different mental health and primary care centers; and the nonclinical sample (n=452), which included a student and a community sample.ResultsThe questionnaire showed good acceptability and internal consistency, appropriate test–retest reliability, and acceptable convergent validity. Strong differentiation between clinical and nonclinical samples was found. As expected, the Risk domain had different characteristics than other domains, but all findings were comparable with the UK referential data. Cutoff scores were calculated for clinical significant change assessment.ConclusionThe Spanish version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure showed acceptable psychometric properties, providing support for using the questionnaire for monitoring the progress of Spanish-speaking psychotherapy clients.

BackgroundDepression is one of the more severe and serious health problems because of its morbidity, disabling effects and for its societal and economic burden. Despite the variety of existing pharmacological and psychological treatments, most of the cases evolve with only partial remission, relapse and recurrence.Cognitive models have contributed significantly to the understanding of unipolar depression and its psychological treatment. However, success is only partial and many authors affirm the need to improve those models and also the treatment programs derived from them. One of the issues that requires further elaboration is the difficulty these patients experience in responding to treatment and in maintaining therapeutic gains across time without relapse or recurrence. Our research group has been working on the notion of cognitive conflict viewed as personal dilemmas according to personal construct theory. We use a novel method for identifying those conflicts using the repertory grid technique (RGT). Preliminary results with depressive patients show that about 90% of them have one or more of those conflicts. This fact might explain the blockage and the difficult progress of these patients, especially the more severe and/or chronic. These results justify the need for specific interventions focused on the resolution of these internal conflicts. This study aims to empirically test the hypothesis that an intervention focused on the dilemma(s) specifically detected for each patient will enhance the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression.DesignA therapy manual for a dilemma-focused intervention will be tested using a randomized clinical trial by comparing the outcome of two treatment conditions: combined group CBT (eight, 2-hour weekly sessions) plus individual dilemma-focused therapy (eight, 1-hour weekly sessions) and CBT alone (eight, 2-hour group weekly sessions plus eight, 1-hour individual weekly sessions).MethodParticipants are patients aged over 18 years meeting diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder, with a score of 19 or above on the Beck depression inventory, second edition (BDI-II) and presenting at least one cognitive conflict (implicative dilemma or dilemmatic construct) as assessed using the RGT. The BDI-II is the primary outcome measure, collected at baseline, at the end of therapy, and at 3- and 12-month follow-up; other secondary measures are also used.DiscussionWe expect that adding a dilemma-focused intervention to CBT will increase the efficacy of one of the more prestigious therapies for depression, thus resulting in a significant contribution to the psychological treatment of depression.Trial registrationISRCTN92443999; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01542957.

BackgroundSince long ago it has been asserted that internal conflicts are relevant to the understanding and treatment of mental disorders, but little research has been conducted to support the claim. The aim of this study was to test the differential efficacy of group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) plus an intervention focused on the dilemma(s) detected for each patient versus group individual CBT plus individual CBT for treating depression. A comparative controlled trial with a 3‐month follow‐up was conducted.MethodsOne hundred twenty‐eight adults meeting criteria for MDD and/or dysthymia, presenting at least one cognitive conflict (implicative dilemma or dilemmatic construct, assessed by the repertory grid technique) and who had completed seven sessions of group CBT were randomly assigned to eight sessions of individual manualized CBT or dilemma‐focused therapy (DFT). The Beck Depression Inventory‐II was administered at baseline, at the end of therapy and after 3 months’ follow‐up.ResultsMultilevel mixed effects modeling yielded no significant differences between CBT and DFT with the intention‐to‐treat sample. Equivalent effect sizes, remission, and response rates were found with completers as well. In combination with group CBT, both individual CBT and DFT significantly reduced depressive symptoms.ConclusionsBoth conditions obtained comparable results to those in the literature. Thus, the superiority of the adjunctive DFT was not demonstrated. Working with dilemmas can be seen as a promising additional target in the psychotherapy of depression, but further research is still required.

BackgroundCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is aimed to counteract cognitions and behaviours that are considered as dysfunctional. The aim of the study is to test whether the inclusion of a non-counteractive approach (dilemma-focused intervention, DFI) in combination with CBT group therapy will yield better short- and long-term outcomes than an intervention conducted entirely using CBT.MethodA total of 128 patients with depression and at least one cognitive conflict, of six health community centres in Barcelona, participated from November of 2011 to December of 2014 in seven weekly group CBT sessions and were then randomly allocated to either DFI or CBT (eight individual sessions each) by an independent researcher. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory-II at baseline, at the end of therapy and three- and twelve-month follow-ups. Therapists did not participate in any of the assessments nor in the randomisation of patients and evaluators were masked to group assignment. Both intention to treat and complete case analyses were performed using linear mixed models with random effects.FindingsAccording to intention-to-treat analysis (F2, 179 = 0.69) and complete case analysis (F2, 146 = 0.88), both conditions similarly reduced the severity of symptoms across posttreatment assessments. For the 77 participants (CBTgroup +CBTindividual = 40; CBTgroup+DFIindividual = 37) that completed allocated treatment and one-year follow-up assessment, response and remission rates were relative higher for the DFI condition, however no significant differences were found between treatment conditions. The relapse rates were similar between treatment conditions (CBTgroup +CBTindividual = 7/20; CBTgroup+DFIindividual = 8/22).InterpretationAlthough using a counteractive approach across all the treatment sessions is quite effective, it does not seem to be necessary to produce significant improvement. DFI may be considered as an alternative, which could be included in a wider treatment for depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; ID: NCT01542957.