The effect of cognitive–behavioral therapy as an antidepressive treatment is falling: Reply to Ljòtsson et al. (2017) and Cristea et al. (2017).

Friborg, Oddgeir; Johnsen, Tom Johan

doi:10.1037/bul0000090

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(a) Resilience was assessed using the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) (Friborg et al, 2003. (b) The Self-Esteem Rating Scale (Self-Esteem-RS) (Nugent, 1993) was used to assess self-esteem.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The complex relationship between self-reported ‘personal recovery’ and clinical recovery in schizophrenia

Rossi

Amore

Galderisi³

et al. 2018

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-reported 'personal recovery' and clinical recovery in schizophrenia (SRPR and CR, respectively) reflect different perspectives in schizophrenia outcome, not necessarily concordant with each other and usually representing the consumer's or the therapist's point of view. By means of a cluster analysis on SRPR-related variables, we identified three clusters. The first and third cluster included subjects with the best and the poorest clinical outcome respectively. The second cluster was characterized by better insight, higher levels of depression and stigma, lowest self-esteem and personal strength, and highest emotional coping. The first cluster showed positive features of recovery, while the third cluster showed negative features. The second cluster, with the most positive insight, showed a more complex pattern, a somewhat 'paradoxical' mixture of positive and negative personal and clinical features of recovery. The present results suggest the need for a characterization of persons with schizophrenia along SRPR and CR dimensions to design individualized and integrated treatment programs aimed to improve insight and coping strategies, reduce stigma, and shape recovery styles.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The complex relationship between self-reported ‘personal recovery’ and clinical recovery in schizophrenia

Rossi

Amore

Galderisi³

et al. 2018

Schizophrenia Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the degree to which an intervention is delivered as intended) was only adequately reported in 11% of the analyzed studies published in six high-impact-factor journals (Cox et al ., 2019). Reported effect sizes of psychotherapy for anxiety and depressive disorders seem to have stagnated or even decreased during recent decades (Öst, 2008; Johnsen and Friborg, 2015; Friborg and Johnsen, 2017; Cristea et al ., 2017b; Weisz et al ., 2019). This is also true for antidepressants in depressive and anxiety disorders and may apply to antipsychotic drugs, too (Schalkwijk et al ., 2014; Leucht et al ., 2017; Gomez et al ., 2018).…”

Section: Further Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a paradigm shift in treatment and research of mental disorders

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental disorders are common and represent a significant and worldwide public health concern (Smith, 2011; Vigo et al., 2016; Patel et al., 2018). The global burden of disease due to mental illness accounts for 21-32% of years lived with disability and 7-13% of disability-adjusted life-years (Vigo et al., 2016). The Lancet commission on global mental health and sustainable development just recently estimated a loss of US$16 trillion to the global economy due to mental disorders in the period 2010-2030 (Patel et al., 2018). Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are the two key available treatments presently offered to millions of subjects with mental disorders around the world. However, recent evidence suggests that their effects are overestimated due to several factors, such as publication bias,

show abstract

“…The previously mentioned meta-analysis of individual CBT was criticized by some authors, who objected that some of the statistical choices were inappropriate (Cristea et al, 2017; Ljótsson, Hedman, Mattsson, & Andersson, 2017). These objections, which mainly focused on the analytic mixture of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials and the perceived lack of attention to potential issues of heterogeneity, were subsequently addressed by the original authors (Friborg & Johnsen, 2017), who acknowledged some uncertainties while countering irrelevant critiques and reaffirming their original conclusions. Other researchers have also recently contributed with theoretical insight and potential explanatory factors related to the original findings (Dobson, 2016; Waltman, Creed, & Beck, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis of group cognitive–behavioral therapy as an antidepressive treatment: Are we getting better?

Johnsen¹,

Thimm²

2018

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis examines temporal changes (time trends) in the effects of group cognitive–behavioral therapy (GCBT) as a treatment for unipolar depression. In this exploratory study, 37 studies (comprising 1,016 patients) conducted between 1980 and 2015 were included, and their effect sizes (ESs) were quantified as Hedge’s g based on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD). In the main analyses, within-group (prepost) comparisons (k = 35 for the BDI, and k = 14 for the HRSD) and controlled (between group) comparisons (k = 16 for the BDI) were conducted. The average within-group ES was 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16–1.19) for the BDI and 1.56 for the HRSD (95% CI = 1.20–1.90). The publication year of each study was examined as a linear metaregression predictor of ES. The results showed a significant increase in effect sizes for GCBT over time, with the BDI as outcome measure. However, this was not found for the HRSD as outcome measure. Subgroup analyses were performed on selected moderator variables to determine whether there was any covariation with effect sizes. These analyses revealed that in trials conducted without following a set manual, effect sizes increased with time—an association not found for trials using a manual. Potential causes and implications are discussed.

show abstract

The effect of cognitive–behavioral therapy as an antidepressive treatment is falling: Reply to Ljòtsson et al. (2017) and Cristea et al. (2017).

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

The complex relationship between self-reported ‘personal recovery’ and clinical recovery in schizophrenia

The complex relationship between self-reported ‘personal recovery’ and clinical recovery in schizophrenia

Toward a paradigm shift in treatment and research of mental disorders

A meta-analysis of group cognitive–behavioral therapy as an antidepressive treatment: Are we getting better?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About