Cited by 16Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPhysical Activity and Health

Feasibility of an exercise and CBT intervention for treatment of depression: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Open access
Meyer, Jacob D., Perkins, Seana L., Brower, Cassandra S., Lansing, Jeni E., Slocum, Julia A., Thomas, Emily B. K., Murray, Thomas A., Lee, Duck-chul +1 more·2022·Frontiers in Psychiatry

Abstract

Depression (DEP) is prevalent and current treatments are ineffective for many people. This pilot study's purpose was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and plausible efficacy of an 8-week intervention employing 30 min of prescribed moderate intensity exercise (“ActiveCBT”) compared to 30 min of usual activities (“CalmCBT”) immediately prior to weekly online CBT sessions. Ten adults with DSM-5-diagnosed current DEP were randomized to groups and completed: an intake assessment, eight weekly CBT sessions, final assessment, and 3-month follow-up. ActiveCBT participants were prescribed 30-min of moderate exercise immediately prior to each standardized 50-min CBT session. CalmCBT participants continued with normal activities for 30 min before therapy. Questionnaires regarding DEP symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]), between-session effectiveness (Behavioral Activation for Depression Survey [BADS], Automatic Thoughts Questionnaire [ATQ]), in-session effectiveness (Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised [WAI]), and state anhedonia (Dimension Analog Rating Scale [DARS], Visual Analog Scale [VAS]; assessed 3 times: before Active/Calm condition, after, and after therapy) were completed each week. Therapy fidelity ratings were independently coded via a standardized codebook. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (SCID) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) were used to assess DEP at intake, final, and 3-month follow-up. We found strong feasibility and acceptability (100% adherence, 100% retention at final visit, 74.6% therapy fidelity, and high patient satisfaction ratings). Differences between groups favoring ActiveCBT in anhedonia (DARS, Hedges' g = 0.92; VAS, g = 3.16), within- (WAI, g = 0.1.10), and between-session effectiveness (ATQ g = −0.65; BADS g = −1.40), suggest plausible efficacy of ActiveCBT for enhancing CBT. DEP rates were reduced in both groups from baseline to final (60% MDD SCID remission) and at follow up (Active: 40%; Calm: 25%). Larger and potentially quicker symptom improvement was found favoring the Active condition to the final visit (HAMD, between-group changes g = −1.33; PHQ-9, g = −0.62), with small differences remaining at follow-up (HAMD, g = −0.45; PHQ-9, g = −0.19). Exercise priming appears acceptable and plausibly efficacious for enhancing mechanisms of CBT and overall outcomes, though the present small sample precludes efficacy determinations. It appears feasible to conduct a randomized controlled trial comparing ActiveCBT to CalmCBT. Future trials evaluating this potentially promising treatment approach and mediating mechanisms are warranted.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.799600

Cites

58 of 58 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. [61]Miles MB Huberman AM Saldana J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, Califonia: SAGE Publications, Inc. (2019).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meyer, J. D., Perkins, S. L., Brower, C. S., Lansing, J. E., Slocum, J. A., Thomas, E. B. K., Murray, T. A., Lee, D.-C., & Wade, N. G.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Meyer, Jacob D.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Published
2022-05-04
Volume
13
Pages
799600-799600
ISSN
1664-0640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225392349
Cited by
16
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Iowa State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
depression, physical activity, cognitive behavioral therapy, anhedonia, behavioral activation, automatic thoughts, therapeutic relationship, medication adherence, treatment acceptability, feasibility, depression remission, patient satisfaction, adolescents and young adults

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