Previous quantitative reviews of research on the efficacy of psychotherapy for depression have included only a subset of the available research or limited their focus to a single outcome measure. The present review offers a more comprehensive quantitative integration of this literature. Using studies that compared psychotherapy with either no treatment or another form of treatment, this article assesses (a) the overall effectiveness of psychotherapy for depressed clients, (b) its effectiveness relative to pharmacotherapy, and (c) the clinical significance of treatment outcomes. Findings from the review confirm that depressed clients benefit substantially from psychotherapy, and these gains appear comparable to those observed with pharmacotherapy. Initial analysis suggested some differences in the efficacy of various types of treatment; however, once the influence of investigator allegiance was removed, there remained no evidence for the relative superiority of any 1 approach. In view of these results, the focus of future research should be less on differentiating among psychotherapies for depression than on identifying the factors responsible for improvement. Depression is a prevalent clinical disorder with high economic and emotional costs. Epidemiological research has indicated that 10%-20% of the population experience a major depressive episode at some point in their lifetime (Boyd & Weissman, 1981), with the incidence highest during the adult years when family and career responsibilities may be most adversely affected (Weissman & Myers, 1978). Although the remission rate for depressive disorders is relatively high (Beck, 1967, chap. 3), a substantial portion of those afflicted remain chronically depressed (Weissman & Klerman, 1977), and those who do improve are at an increased risk for further episodes (Belsher & Costello, 1988;Kessler, 1978; Klerman, 1978). Until recently, depression was treated almost exclusively with medication, traditional insight-oriented therapy, or a combination of the two. However, the 1970s witnessed the development of a number of new therapeutic approaches, each of which pos
This article reports a secondary analysis of past therapy outcome meta-analysis. Fifteen meta-analysis provided effect sizes from 56 studies in previous reviews that met 1 of 3 increasingly stringent levels of criteria for clinical representativeness. The effect sizes were synthesized and compared with results from the original meta-analyses. Effect sizes from more clinically representative studies are the same size at all 3 criteria levels as in past meta-analyses. Almost no studies exist that meet the most stringent level of criteria. Results are interpreted cautiously because of controversy about what criteria best capture the notion of clinical representativeness, because so few experiments have tested therapy in clinical conditions, and because other models for exploring the generalizability of therapy outcome research to clinical conditions might yield different results.
This investigation was designed to identify the risk factors associated with different stages of cigarette use in a large biracial adolescent sample. A questionnaire assessing smoking habits and variables thought to be related to smoking was administered to 6,967 7th graders. Analysis revealed that the best predictor of experimentation with cigarettes was the perception that they were easily available. Regular smoking appeared to be heavily influenced by cost. Social influences contributed to both experimental and regular smoking, but the impact of social models varied with ethnicity and gender. Analysis further revealed that weight-related variables were closely tied to regular smoking. Implications of the findings for smoking prevention programs are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.