Cited by 61Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A Randomized Controlled Trial in Routine Clinical Practice Comparing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder

A-Tjak, Jacqueline G.L., Morina, Nexhmedin, Topper, Maurice, Emmelkamp, Paul M.G.·2018·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

Abstract

Background: Since current therapies for depression are effective but not for all patients alike, we need to further improve available treatments. Existing research suggests that acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) may effectively treat major depressive disorder (MDD). We compared ACT with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression, testing the hypothesis that CBT would outperform ACT. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 82 patients suffering from MDD. Data were collected before and after treatment and at the 6-month follow-up, assessing diagnosis, symptom levels of depression, and quality of life. Results: After treatment, the rates of remission from depression were 75 and 80% for the ACT and CBT conditions, respectively. Patients in both conditions further reported significant and large reductions in depressive symptoms and improvement in quality of life from before to after treatment as well as at the follow-up. Our findings indicated no significant differences between the two intervention groups. Conclusion: Our results indicate that CBT is not more effective in treating depression than ACT. Further research is needed to investigate whether ACT and CBT work differently for different groups of patients with depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000486807

Cites

35 of 35 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

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
A-Tjak, J. G. L., Morina, N., Topper, M., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G.
Affiliations
  • PsyQ (NL)
  • GGZ Noord-Holland-Noord (NL)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2018
Volume
87
Issue
3
Pages
154-163
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W2792698726
Cited by
61
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, major depressive disorder, depression treatment, treatment comparison, depressive symptom reduction, remission, quality of life, routine clinical practice
MeSH terms
Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

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