Comparing Effect and Change Processes in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Emotion-Focused Therapy for Depression

• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04690946
• Recruitment Status: Recruiting
• First Posted: December 31, 2020
• Last Update Posted: February 2, 2021
• Sponsor: Institutt for Psykologisk Radgivning
• Collaborator: University of Bergen
• Information provided by (Responsible Party): Institutt for Psykologisk Radgivning

Study Description

Brief Summary:

Depression is a common mental illness which is costly for both society and for those affected. There is a need for effective treatments of depression and there is a need to make sure that the treatments that are given are based on scientific findings. In this study the investigators want to examine and compare two common treatment models for depression - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Emotion-Focused Therapy. The investigators want to investigate what characterizes these treatments when they are successful, and seek to better understand what it is like for patients to receive these treatments. Also, the investigators will investigate the experience of patients who abruptly discontinue treatment. To investigate these questions, self-report measures, interviews and analysis of session recordings will be used.

Condition or disease	Intervention/treatment	Phase
Depression	Behavioral: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Behavioral: Emotion-Focused Therapy	Not Applicable

Detailed Description:

Depression is a widespread mental disorder which can result in severe impairment and reduced quality of life for those affected. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is the approach with strongest empirical support, and is often recommended as treatment for depression, as in the NICE Guidelines for Depression from 2009. However, research indicates that not all patients respond to CBT, indicating a need to expand the range of available evidence-based psychotherapies, and mapping the mechanisms of change in existing treatments.

Emotion focused therapy (EFT) is one promising treatment for depression with empirical support for its efficacy. A previous study found equal outcome in CBT and Process-Experiential treatment/EFT for depression, but more studies are needed to replicate these findings across cultural contexts. The main aim of this study is to investigate whether there are significant differences in the therapeutic effect of EFT compared to that of CBT for patients with moderate and major depressive disorder in a Norwegian outpatient setting.

Although several psychotherapeutic approaches have shown efficacy in the treatment of depression, no psychotherapeutic interventions is beneficial for all patients. There is a need for research that investigates what treatments works for whom, based on patient characteristics and preferences. The present study will investigate whether patient characteristics moderate treatment outcome, both within and between treatment conditions. In addition, qualitative interviews will be conducted to get a deeper understanding of what clients find helpful and challenging within the CBT and EFT condition, and to explore the experience of patients who drop-out of the treatment process.

In order to further develop psychotherapeutic treatments and increase their effectiveness, there is a need to identify processes that are related to good and poor outcome. Process-outcome studies are commonly used for this purpose. The present study will investigate and compare characteristics of psychotherapy processes in both the CBT and EFT conditions and how these are related to outcome.

Study design and Method

The study will be conducted as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in order to compare the efficacy of EFT to CBT. RCT's are considered the gold standard for efficacy studies. Participants will be recruited from the Norwegian mental health program "Return to work", a publicly funded treatment program where patients with common mental health issues receives outpatient psychotherapeutic treatment to reduce and prevent sick leave.

The present study will address the following research hypothesis and questions:

1. EFT and CBT will not result in significantly different outcome in the treatment of patients with moderate and major depressive disorder.
2. Patient characteristics (severity of depression, adverse childhood experiences and clients' initial ability to make sense of their experience) will moderate treatment outcome for both conditions.
3. Will therapeutic processes (therapeutic alliance, therapist empathy, clients' ability to make sense of their experience and emotional processing) mediate treatment outcome equally for both conditions?
4. What do patients in both conditions describe as helpful and unhelpful aspects of treatment?
5. How do patients in both conditions describe their own change or lack or change after treatment?
6. How do patients that choose to drop out of treatment describe the processes leading to that decision?

Study Design

• Study Type: Interventional (Clinical Trial)
• Estimated Enrollment: 120 participants
• Allocation: Randomized
• Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
• Intervention Model Description: Randomized Clinical Trial
• Masking: Double (Participant, Investigator)
• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Official Title: Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the Therapeutic Effect and Change Processes in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Emotion-Focused Therapy for Depression
• Actual Study Start Date: January 20, 2021
• Estimated Primary Completion Date: December 30, 2022
• Estimated Study Completion Date: December 30, 2023

Arms and Interventions

Arm	Intervention/treatment
Active Comparator: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; 14-18 sessions of psychotherapy according to principles of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy	Behavioral: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; 14-18 sessions of CBT; Other Name: CBT
Active Comparator: Emotion-Focused Therapy; 14-18 sessions of psychotherapy according to principles of Emotion Focused Therapy	Behavioral: Emotion-Focused Therapy; 14-18 sessions of EFT; Other Name: EFT

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures :

1. Change in Beck Depression Inventory from session to session [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, 1 day after each therapy session, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of depressive symptoms, ranging from minimum 0 and maximum 63. Higher scores suggests worse outcome.

Secondary Outcome Measures :

1. Change in Beck Anxiety Inventory [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of anxiety symptoms, ranging from minimum 0 and maximum 63. Higher scores suggests worse outcome.
2. Change in Repetitive Eating Questionnaire [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of symptoms related to eating disorders, average scores, minimum 0, maximum 6, higher score indicates worse outcome.
3. Change in Inventory of Interpersonal problems [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of interpersonal difficulties, average scores minimum 0, maximum 4. Higher score suggests worse outcome.
4. Change in The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire from session to session [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, 1 day after each therapy session, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of psychological flexibility, average scores minimum 1, maximum 7. Higher score suggests worse outcome.
5. Change in Emotion Approach Coping Scale [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of emotional processing ability, average scores minimum 1, maximum 4. Higher score suggests better outcome.
6. Change in Penn State Worry Questionaire [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of rumination and cognitive processing, total scores minimum 16, maximum 80. Higher score suggests worse outcome.
7. Change in Self-Compassion Scale [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of self-relating, average scores, minimum 1, maximum 5, higher scores suggests better outcome.
8. Change in Quality of life questionnaire [ Time Frame: 1 week before treatment startup, within 1 week after treatment, 3 month follow up, 6 month follow up, 12 months follow up ]
   Self-report measure of quality of life, average scores, minimum 1, maximum 5, higher scores indicate better outcome.
9. Change in Working Alliance Inventory - short version [ Time Frame: 1 day after 1st through 14th therapy session. ]
   Self report measure on experience of therapeutic alliance, average scores, minimum 1, maximum 7, higher scores suggests better outcome.

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Sexes Eligible for Study: All
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

- Moderate or major depressive episode as primary diagnosis

Exclusion Criteria:

• Serious mental illness (schizophrenia, severe bipolar disorder, recent or current psychotic episode) or intellectual disability.
• Severe alcohol or drug abuse, last 12 months.
• Suicidality last 6 months
• Severe medical issues
• If the participant is on antidepressive medication, the dosage must have been stable for more than 4 weeks, and the participant must consent to staying on the same dosage for the duration of the treatment.
• The participant is currently in another treatment for depression

Contacts and Locations

Contacts

Contact: Jan R Stiegler, PhD; +4792211019; stiegler@ipr.no

Contact: Hanna Aardal, Cand Psychol; +4795287217; aardal@ipr.no

Locations

Norway

Institutt for Psykologisk rådgivning; Recruiting

Bergen, Norway, 5012

Contact: Jan R Stiegler, PhD +4792211019 stiegler@ipr.no

Contact: Hanna Aardal, Cand Psychol +4795287217 aardal@ipr.no

Sponsors and Collaborators

Institutt for Psykologisk Radgivning

University of Bergen

Investigators

• Principal Investigator: Jan Reidar Stiegler, PhD; Institute for Psychological Counselling

  Study Documents (Full-Text)

Documents provided by Institutt for Psykologisk Radgivning:

Study Protocol  [PDF] December 21, 2020

More Information

Publications:

Dimidjian S, Hollon SD. How would we know if psychotherapy were harmful? Am Psychol. 2010 Jan;65(1):21-33. doi: 10.1037/a0017299. Review.

Blatt SJ, Luyten P. A structural-developmental psychodynamic approach to psychopathology: two polarities of experience across the life span. Dev Psychopathol. 2009 Summer;21(3):793-814. doi: 10.1017/S0954579409000431. Review.

Elliott R. Psychotherapy change process research: realizing the promise. Psychother Res. 2010 Mar;20(2):123-35. doi: 10.1080/10503300903470743. Review.

Goldman, R. N., Greenberg, L. S., & Angus, L. (2006). The effects of adding emotion-focused interventions to the client-centered relationship conditions in the treatment of depression. Psychotherapy Research, 16(5), 537-549.

Watson JC, Gordon LB, Stermac L, Kalogerakos F, Steckley P. Comparing the effectiveness of process-experiential with cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy in the treatment of depression. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003 Aug;71(4):773-81.

Greenberg, L & Watson, J. (1998). Experiential Therapy of Depression: Differential Effects of ClientCentered Relationship Conditions and Process Experiential Interventions, Psychotherapy Research, 8:2, 210-224.

Kazdin AE. Understanding how and why psychotherapy leads to change. Psychother Res. 2009 Jul;19(4-5):418-28. doi: 10.1080/10503300802448899. Review.

Kazdin AE. Evidence-based treatment research: Advances, limitations, and next steps. Am Psychol. 2011 Nov;66(8):685-698. doi: 10.1037/a0024975.

Kendall JM. Designing a research project: randomised controlled trials and their principles. Emerg Med J. 2003 Mar;20(2):164-8. Review.

Lambert, M. J. (2011). What have we learned about treatment failure in empirically supported treatments? Some suggestions for practice. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 18(3), 413-420.

What have we learned about treatment failure in empirically supported treatments

NICE (2009a). Depression: Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults. Clinical Guideline 90. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available at www.nice.org.uk

Nilsson, T., Svensson, M., Sandell, R. & Clinton, D. (2007). Patients' experiences of change in cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic therapy: a qualitative comparative study. Psychotherapy Research, 17:5, 553-566.

Rice, L. N., & Greenberg, L. S. (Eds.). (1984). Patterns of change: Intensive analysis of psychotherapy process. Guilford Press.

Roth, A & Fonagy, P (1996) What works for whom? New York: Guilford Press

Watson JC. Mapping patterns of change in emotion-focused psychotherapy: Implications for theory, research, practice, and training. Psychother Res. 2018 May;28(3):389-405. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2018.1435920. Epub 2018 Feb 21. Review.

• Responsible Party: Institutt for Psykologisk Radgivning
• ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04690946
• Other Study ID Numbers: IPR
• First Posted: December 31, 2020
• Last Update Posted: February 2, 2021
• Last Verified: January 2021

Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:

• Plan to Share IPD: No

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Depression; Depressive Disorder; Behavioral Symptoms; Mood Disorders; Mental Disorders