Cognitive behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy versus a brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder (IMPACT): A multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial

Ian M. Goodyer*, Shirley Reynolds, Barbara Barrett, Sarah Byford, Bernadka Dubicka, Jonathan Hill, Fiona Holland, Raphael Kelvin, Nick Midgley, Chris Roberts, Rob Senior, Mary Target, Barry Widmer, Paul Wilkinson, Peter Fonagy

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

186 Citations (Scopus)
181 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Psychological treatments for adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder are associated with diagnostic remission within 28 weeks in 65-70% of patients. We aimed to assess the medium-term effects and costs of psychological therapies on maintenance of reduced depression symptoms 12 months after treatment. Methods: We did this multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial (IMPACT) at 15 National Health Service child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) clinics in three regions in England. Adolescent patients (aged 11-17 years) with a diagnosis of DSM IV major depressive disorder were randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a web-based randomisation service, to receive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or short-term psychoanalytical therapy versus a reference brief psychological intervention. Randomisation was stochastically minimised by age, sex, self-reported depression sum score, and region. Patients and clinicians were aware of group allocation, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors. Patients were followed up and reassessed at weeks 6, 12, 36, 52, and 86 post-randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported depression symptoms at weeks 36, 52, and 86, as measured with the self-reported Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ). Because our aim was to compare the two psychological therapies with the brief psychosocial intervention, we first established whether CBT was inferior to short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy for the same outcome. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN83033550. Findings: Between June 29, 2010, and Jan 17, 2013, we randomly assigned 470 patients to receive the brief psychosocial intervention (n=158), CBT (n=155), or short-term psychoanalytical therapy (n=157); 465 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population. 392 (84%) patients had available data for primary analysis by the end of follow-up. Treatment fidelity and differentiation were established between the three interventions. The median number of treatment sessions differed significantly between patients in the brief psychosocial intervention group (n=6 [IQR 4-11]), CBT group (n=9 [5-14]), and short-term psychoanalytical therapy group (n=11 [5-23]; p

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)109-119
JournalThe Lancet Psychiatry
Volume4
Issue number2
Early online date1 Dec 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cognitive behavioural therapy and short-term psychoanalytical psychotherapy versus a brief psychosocial intervention in adolescents with unipolar major depressive disorder (IMPACT): A multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this