Cited by 130Mental Health Treatment and AccessEpilepsy research and treatmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

PEARLS depression treatment for individuals with epilepsy: A randomized controlled trial

Ciechanowski, Paul, Chaytor, Naomi, Miller, John, Fraser, Robert, Russo, Joan, Unutzer, Jurgen, Gilliam, Frank·2010·Epilepsy & Behavior

Abstract

Objective Depression is associated with higher rates of suicide and lower levels of functioning and quality of life in individuals with epilepsy. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the effectiveness of PEARLS, a home-based program for managing depression in adult individuals with epilepsy and clinically significant acute and chronic depression.Methods Delivered by masters-level counselors, PEARLS is a collaborative care intervention consisting of problem solving treatment, behavioral activation, and psychiatric consultation. Patients were randomly assigned to the PEARLS intervention (N = 40) or usual care (N = 40), and assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.Results Compared with patients who received usual care, patients assigned to the PEARLS intervention achieved lower depression severity (P<0.005) (Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-20) and lower suicidal ideation (P = 0.025) over 12 months.Conclusions The PEARLS program, a community-integrated, home-based treatment for depression, effectively reduces depressive symptoms in adults with epilepsy and comorbid depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.yebeh.2010.06.003

Cites

42 of 42 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

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ciechanowski, P., Chaytor, N., Miller, J., Fraser, R., Russo, J., Unutzer, J., & Gilliam, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Geisinger Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Ciechanowski, Paul
Venue
Epilepsy & Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
225-231
ISSN
1525-5050 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998614246
Cited by
130
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epilepsy & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K24NS047551, R01NS040808)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U48-DP000050)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Epilepsy research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, epilepsy, pearls, home-based therapy, collaborative care, problem-solving therapy, behavioral activation, psychiatric consultation, suicidal ideation, comorbid depression
MeSH terms
Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Community Health Services, Depression, Epilepsy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Checklist

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