Cited by 36Treatment of Major DepressionPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Gains in employment status following antidepressant medication or cognitive therapy for depression

Open access
Fournier, Jay C., DeRubeis, Robert J., Amsterdam, Jay, Shelton, Richard C., Hollon, Steven D.·2015·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Depression can adversely affect employment status. Aims: To examine whether there is a relative advantage of cognitive therapy or antidepressant medication in improving employment status following treatment, using data from a previously reported trial. Method: Random assignment to cognitive therapy (n = 48) or the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor paroxetine (n = 93) for 4 months; treatment responders were followed for up to 24 months. Differential effects of treatment on employment status were examined. Results: At the end of 28 months, cognitive therapy led to higher rates of full-time employment (88.9%) than did antidepressant medication among treatment responders (70.8%), χ 21 = 5.78, P = 0.02, odds ratio (OR) = 5.66, 95% CI 1.16–27.69. In the shorter-term, the main effect of treatment on employment status was not significant following acute treatment (χ 21 = 1.74, P = 0.19, OR = 1.77, 95% CI 0.75–4.17); however, we observed a site×treatment interaction (χ 21 = 6.87, P = 0.009) whereby cognitive therapy led to a higher rate of full-time employment at one site but not at the other. Conclusions: Cognitive therapy may produce greater improvements in employment v. medication, particularly over the longer term.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.133694

Cites

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?

  • Therapist experience, adherence, and ability to be responsive to individual patient differences are associated with better outcomes.

    “Therapist experience, adherence, and ability to be responsive to individual patient differences are associated with better outcomes.54,55”

    From Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [54]

    The Methods (Acute Treatment; page unavailable) say therapist qualifications and adherence were characterized elsewhere, but do not link either to outcomes. The Discussion (page unavailable) raises differences in therapists’ techniques only as an untested explanation for site differences. Searches for therapist experience, adherence, and responsiveness to individual patients found no passage establishing the claimed association. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 36

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [7]American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Text Revision 4 American Psychiatric Press 2000
  2. [8]First M Spitzer R Gibbon M Williams J Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR- Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Patient Edition With Psychotic Screen (SCID-I/P W/PSY SCREEN) Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute 2001
  3. [11]Spitzer R Williams J Gibbon M First M Structured clinical interview for DSM-IIR personality disorders (SCID-II, Version 1.0) American Psychiatric Press 1990
  4. [31]Beck AT Rush AJ Shaw BF Emery G Cognitive Therapy of Depression The Guilford Press 1979

Authors
Fournier, J. C., DeRubeis, R. J., Amsterdam, J., Shelton, R. C., & Hollon, S. D.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Fournier, Jay C.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2015-04
Volume
206
Issue
4
Pages
332-338
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W1993520339
Cited by
36
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 060353, MH06099, MH 55875, MH-55877, K23MH097889, R01MH080097, R01MH060353, MH097889, MH077580, R34MH077580, R10MH055875, MH080097, R10MH055877)
  • National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (AT005074)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (AT005074, R01AT005074)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, employment status, cognitive therapy, antidepressants, paroxetine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, treatment response, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Employment, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Paroxetine

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