Group person‐based cognitive therapy for chronic depression: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objective This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) assesses Person-Based Cognitive Therapy (PBCT), an integration of cognitive therapy and mindfulness, as a treatment for chronic depression. Method Twenty-eight participants with chronic depression were randomly allocated to treatment as usual (TAU) or PBCT group plus TAU. Assessments of depression (Beck Depression Inventory, BDI-II) and mindfulness (Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire) were conducted before and after therapy. Results Intention-to-treat analysis found significant group by time interactions for both depression and mindfulness. Secondary analyses showed depression and mindfulness scores significantly improved for PBCT participants but not for TAU participants, with 64% of PBCT participants showing reliable improvement in depression, compared with 0% of TAU participants. Conclusions PBCT is a promising treatment for chronic depression. Findings suggest a full RCT would be warranted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The meditation script has been used in clinical and nonclinical populations including those experiencing depression.
“The meditation script, originally developed for individuals with distressing psychotic experiences (Chadwick, 2006), has been used in studies with clinical (e.g. Chadwick et al., 2005; Chadwick et al., 2016; Dannahy et al., 2011; Ellett, 2013) and nonclinical (Cavanagh et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2019; Kingston et al., 2019; Shore et al., 2017) populations including those experiencing depression (”
From A randomised trial comparing a brief online delivery of mindfulness-plus-values versus values only for symptoms of depression: Does baseline severity matter? (2020) · cites this paper as Strauss et al., 2012
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 12 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Strauss, C., Hayward, M., & Chadwick, P.
- Affiliations
- Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University of Sussex (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chadwick, Paul
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-05-09
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 345-350
- ISSN
- 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8260
- OpenAlex
- W1572217595
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- chronic depression, group therapy, mindfulness, cognitive therapy, depression treatment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Chronic Disease, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Psychotherapy, Group, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome
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
