Cited by 46Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

The clinical effectiveness of cognitive therapy for depression in an outpatient clinic

Open access
Gibbons, Carly J., Fournier, Jay C., Stirman, Shannon Wiltsey, DeRubeis, Robert J., Crits-Christoph, Paul, Beck, Aaron T.·2010·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Cognitive therapy (CT) has been shown to be efficacious in the treatment of depression in numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, little evidence is available that speaks to the effectiveness of this treatment under routine clinical conditions. Method This paper examines outcomes of depressed individuals seeking cognitive therapy at an outpatient clinic (N=217, Center for Cognitive Therapy; CCT). Outcomes were then compared to those of participants in a large NIMH-funded RCT of cognitive therapy and medications as treatments for depression. Results The CCT is shown to be a clinically representative setting, and 61% of participants experienced reliable change in symptoms over the course of treatment; of those, 45% (36% of the total sample) met criteria for recovery by the end of treatment. Participants at CCT had similar outcomes to participants treated in the RCT, but there was some evidence that those with more severe symptoms at intake demonstrated greater improvement in the RCT than their counterparts at CCT. Limitations The CCT may not be representative of all outpatient settings, and the structure of treatment there was considerably different from that in the RCT. Treatment fidelity was not assessed at CCT. Conclusions Depressed individuals treated with cognitive therapy in a routine clinical care setting showed a significant improvement in symptoms. When compared with outcomes evidenced in RCTs, there was little evidence of superior outcomes in either setting. However, for more severe participants, outcomes were found to be superior when treatment was delivered within an RCT than in an outpatient setting. Clinicians treating such patients in non-research settings may thus benefit from making modifications to treatment protocols to more closely resemble research settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2009.12.030

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Whisman M Perez J Ramel W 2000 Factor structure of the Beck Depression Inventory-Second Edition (BDI-II) in a student sample J Clin Psychol 56 545 551 10775046

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gibbons, C. J., Fournier, J. C., Stirman, S. W., DeRubeis, R. J., Crits-Christoph, P., & Beck, A. T.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Gibbons, Carly J.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-09
Volume
125
Issue
1-3
Pages
169-176
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059593063
Cited by
46
References
38
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R49/CCR316866)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R10 MH55875, R00MH080100, R37MH047383, R10 MH50129, K02 MH01697, K02MH001697, MH47383, R10MH055875, K99MH080100, R10MH055877)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
cognitive therapy, depression, outpatient care, clinical effectiveness, routine clinical practice, intervention fidelity, symptom recovery, treatment protocol modification, symptom severity
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Antidepressive Agents, Combined Modality Therapy, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Young Adult

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