Cited by 57Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The effectiveness of behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in older adults: a meta‐analysis

Samad, Zara, Brealey, Stephen, Gilbody, Simon·2011·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the effectiveness of behavioural therapy in depressed older adults. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to July 2009. Reference lists of systematic reviews and identified studies from the search strategy were also screened. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural therapy compared with waiting list controls or other psychotherapies in older adults (aged ≥55 years) with clinical depression were included. One author independently identified studies for inclusion. Two authors extracted data and assessed the included studies for risk of bias. Estimates of depression were combined using a random effects model and the I2 statistic to examine heterogeneity. Results: Four RCTs were included in the meta‐analysis. For post‐treatment self‐rated depression symptoms, behavioural therapy was not significantly more effective than a waiting list control [standardised mean difference (SMD) of −0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.35 to 0.30, p = 0.21, n = 117], cognitive therapy (SMD of 0.23, 95% CI −0.24 to 0.70, p = 0.33, n = 134) or brief psychodynamic therapy (SMD of −0.37, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.11, p = 0.13, n = 69). For post‐treatment clinician‐rated depression, behavioural therapy was not significantly more effective than cognitive therapy or brief psychodynamic therapy but was significantly more effective than a waiting list control (weighted mean difference (WMD) of −5.68, 95% CI −7.71 to −3.66, p < 0.001, n = 117). Conclusions: Behavioural therapy in depressed older adults appears to have comparable effectiveness with alternative psychotherapies. Further research is recommended with the need for larger sample sizes, more clarity on trial design and the intervention, longer term follow‐up and concomitant economic evaluations. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.2680

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Samad, Z., Brealey, S., & Gilbody, S.
Affiliations
  • Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Brealey, Stephen
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-09
Volume
26
Issue
12
Pages
1211-1220
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W1999857385
Cited by
57
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
behavior therapy, depression, older adults, psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, brief psychodynamic therapy, waitlist control, treatment effectiveness, self-rated depression
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Behavior Therapy, Depressive Disorder, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Waiting Lists, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review