Behavioural activation therapies for depression in adults with non-communicable diseases

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults with non-communicable diseases

BACKGROUND

Depression is common in people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. The co-existence of depression and NCDs may affect health behaviours, compliance with treatment, physiological factors, and quality of life. This in turn is associated with worse outcomes for both conditions. Behavioural activation is not currently indicated for the treatment of depression in this population in the UK, but is increasingly being used to treat depression in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with any control group for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with each control group separately (no treatment, waiting list, other psychological therapy, pharmacological treatment, or any other type of treatment as usual) for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CCMD-CTR, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers on 4 October 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for depression in participants with NCDs, together with grey literature and reference checking. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in adults with one of four NCDs: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. Only participants with a formal diagnosis of both depression and an NCD were eligible. Studies were included if behavioural activation was the main component of the intervention. We included studies with any comparator that was not behavioural activation, and regardless of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, including independent screening of titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies, contributing data from 181 participants to the analyses. Both studies recruited participants from US hospital clinics; one included people who were recovering from a stroke and the other women with breast cancer. For both studies, the intervention consisted of eight weeks of face-to-face behavioural therapy, with one study comparing to poststroke treatment as usual and the other comparing to problem-solving therapy. Both studies were at risk of performance bias and potential conflict of interest arising from author involvement in the development of the intervention. For one study, risks of selection bias and reporting bias were unclear and the study was judged at high risk of attrition bias. Treatment efficacy (remission) was greater for behavioural activation than for comparators in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 2.38; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.08; moderate-certainty evidence), but these estimates lacked precision and effects were reduced in the long term (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.23; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in treatment acceptability in the short term (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.82) and medium term (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.10) (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in depression symptoms between behavioural activation and comparators (short term: MD -1.15, 95% CI -2.71 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence). One study found no difference for quality of life (short term: MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence), functioning (short term: MD 2.70, 95% CI -6.99 to 12.39; low-certainty evidence), and anxiety symptoms (short term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -4.50 to 1.10; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported data on adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review was not sufficient to draw conclusions on the efficacy and acceptability of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. A future review may wish to include, or focus on, studies of people with subthreshold depression or depression symptoms without a formal diagnosis, as this may inform whether behavioural activation could be used to treat mild or undiagnosed (or both) depressive symptoms in people with NCDs. Evidence from low-resource settings including low- and middle-income countries, for which behavioural activation may offer a feasible alternative to other treatments for depression, would be of interest.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

Behavioural activation is a brief psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to change the way a person interacts with their environment. Behavioural activation is increasingly receiving attention as a potentially cost-effective intervention for depression, which may require less resources and may be easier to deliver and implement than other types of psychotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with other psychological therapies for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with medication for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/placebo no treatment for depression in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CCMD-CTR (all available years), CENTRAL (current issue), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards), Ovid EMBASE (1980 onwards), and Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards) on the 17 January 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 'behavioural activation', or the main elements of behavioural activation for depression in participants with clinically diagnosed depression or subthreshold depression. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches. We searched international trials registries via the World Health Organization's trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression or symptoms of depression in adults aged 18 or over. We excluded RCTs conducted in inpatient settings and with trial participants selected because of a physical comorbidity. Studies were included regardless of reported outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments were also performed by two review authors in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three studies with 5495 participants were included; 51 parallel group RCTs and two cluster-RCTs. We found moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation had greater short-term efficacy than treatment as usual (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 7 RCTs, 1533 participants), although this difference was no longer evident in sensitivity analyses using a worst-case or intention-to-treat scenario. Compared with waiting list, behavioural activation may be more effective, but there were fewer data in this comparison and evidence was of low certainty (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.09; 1 RCT, 26 participants). No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for behavioural activation versus placebo and behavioural activation versus no treatment. We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment efficacy between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 601 participants). Fewer data were available for other comparators. No evidence of a difference in short term-efficacy was found between behavioural activation and third-wave CBT (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 98 participants; low certainty), and psychodynamic therapy (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99; 1 RCT,60 participants; very low certainty). Behavioural activation was more effective than humanistic therapy (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.95; 2 RCTs, 46 participants; low certainty) and medication (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.76; 1 RCT; 141 participants; moderate certainty), but both of these results were based on a small number of trials and participants. No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for comparisons between behavioural activation versus interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapies. There was moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation might have lower treatment acceptability (based on dropout rate) than treatment as usual in the short term, although the data did not confirm a difference and results lacked precision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31; 14 RCTs, 2518 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence did not suggest any difference in short-term acceptability between behavioural activation and waiting list (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93; 8 RCTs. 359 participants), no treatment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.09; 3 RCTs, 187 participants), medication (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; 2 RCTs, 243 participants), or placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67; 1 RCT; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). No evidence on treatment acceptability was available comparing behavioural activation versus psychodynamic therapy. Low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (dropout rate) between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 12 RCTs, 1195 participants), third-wave CBT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, 147 participants); humanistic therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.55; 2 RCTs, 96 participants) (very low certainty), and interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, 123 participants). Results from medium- and long-term primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are summarised in the text.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that behavioural activation may be more effective than humanistic therapy, medication, and treatment as usual, and that it may be no less effective than CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or being placed on a waiting list. However, our confidence in these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (based on dropouts) between behavioural activation and most comparison groups (CBT, humanistic therapy, waiting list, placebo, medication, no treatment or treatment as usual). Again, our confidence in all these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. No data were available about the efficacy of behaioural activation compared with placebo, or about treatment acceptability comparing behavioural activation and psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal, cognitive analytic and integrative therapies. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and better quality RCTs of behavioural activation and by assessing working mechanisms of behavioural activation.