A comparison of the Dodo, EST, and ATI factors among comorbid stimulant-dependent, depressed patients

Psychological interventions for co-occurring depression and substance use disorders

BACKGROUND

Comorbid depression and substance use disorders are common and have poorer outcomes than either disorder alone. While effective psychological treatments for depression or substance use disorders are available, relatively few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of these treatments in people with these comorbid disorders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of psychological interventions delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to February 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and clinical trials registers. All systematic reviews identified, were handsearched for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The review includes data from RCTs of psychological treatments for people diagnosed with comorbid depression and substance use disorders, using structured clinical interviews. Studies were included if some of the sample were experiencing another mental health disorder (e.g. anxiety); however, studies which required a third disorder as part of their inclusion criteria were not included. Studies were included if psychological interventions (with or without pharmacotherapy) were compared with no treatment, delayed treatment, treatment as usual or other psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven RCTs of psychological treatments with a total of 608 participants met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the USA and predominately consisted of Caucasian samples. All studies compared different types of psychological treatments. Two studies compared Integrated Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (ICBT) with Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF), another two studies compared Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression (IPT-D) with other treatment (Brief Supportive Therapy (BST) or Psychoeducation). The other three studies compared different types or combinations of psychological treatments. No studies compared psychological interventions with no treatment or treatment as usual control conditions. The studies included a diverse range of participants (e.g. veterans, prisoners, community adults and adolescents). All studies were at high risk of performance bias, other main sources were selection, outcome detection and attrition bias. Due to heterogeneity between studies only two meta-analyses were conducted. The first meta-analysis focused on two studies (296 participants) comparing ICBT to TSF. Very low-quality evidence revealed that while the TSF group had lower depression scores than the ICBT group at post-treatment (mean difference (MD) 4.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 6.66; 212 participants), there was no difference between groups in depression symptoms (MD 1.53, 95% CI -1.73 to 4.79; 181 participants) at six- to 12-month follow-up. At post-treatment there was no difference between groups in proportion of days abstinent (MD -2.84, 95% CI -8.04 to 2.35; 220 participants), however, the ICBT group had a greater proportion of days abstinent than the TSF group at the six- to 12-month follow-up (MD 10.76, 95% CI 3.10 to 18.42; 189 participants). There were no differences between the groups in treatment attendance (MD -1.27, 95% CI -6.10 to 3.56; 270 participants) or treatment retention (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; 296 participants). The second meta-analysis was conducted with two studies (64 participants) comparing IPT-D with other treatment (Brief Supportive Psychotherapy/Psychoeducation). Very low-quality evidence indicated IPT-D resulted in significantly lower depressive symptoms at post-treatment (MD -0.54, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.04; 64 participants), but this effect was not maintained at three-month follow-up (MD 3.80, 95% CI -3.83 to 11.43) in the one study reporting follow-up outcomes (38 participants; IPT-D versus Psychoeducation). Substance use was examined separately in each study, due to heterogeneity in outcomes. Both studies found very low-quality evidence of no significant differences in substance use outcomes at post-treatment (percentage of days abstinent, IPD versus Brief Supportive Psychotherapy; MD -2.70, 95% CI -28.74 to 23.34; 26 participants) or at three-month follow-up (relative risk of relapse, IPT-D versus Psychoeducation; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 38 participants). There was also very low-quality evidence for no significant differences between groups in treatment retention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; 64 participants). No adverse events were reported in any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are limited due to the low number and very poor quality of included studies. No conclusions can be made about the efficacy of psychological interventions (delivered alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy) for the treatment of comorbid depression and substance use disorders, as they are yet to be compared with no treatment or treatment as usual in this population. In terms of differences between psychotherapies, although some significant effects were found, the effects were too inconsistent and small, and the evidence of too poor quality, to be of relevance to practice.

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS)-use disorders

Background

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion.Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first-choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder.

Objectives

To investigate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural treatment for people with ATS-use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual.

Search methods

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT for ATS-use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field.

Selection criteria

Eligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug-using behaviours.

Data collection and analysis

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

Main results

Only two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web-based CBT to a waiting-list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single-session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.59, 95% CI-1.16 to-0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web-based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta-analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD -0.28, 95% CI-0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use.

Authors' conclusions

Currently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS-use disorders because of a paucity of high-quality research in this area.

Cognitive-behavioural treatment for amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS)-use disorders

BACKGROUND

Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion.Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS-use disorder. However, cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first-choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance-use disorders (e.g. alcohol-, opioid- and cocaine-use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS-use disorder.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural treatment for people with ATS-use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12-step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT for ATS-use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug-using behaviours.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web-based CBT to a waiting-list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single-session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.59, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web-based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta-analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS-use disorders because of a paucity of high-quality research in this area.

Selecting the most appropriate treatment for each patient

Reviews the emergence of research on fitting treatment procedures to the unique needs and proclivities of patients. Traditional research on efficacy of psychotherapy focuses on the role of interventions and theoretical brands, minimizing factors that cannot be randomly assigned. This line of research has not realized its initial and desired promise, perhaps because it fails to incorporate into the study of psychotherapy important and effective treatment variations that are associated with therapist and non-diagnostic patient factors. Contemporary efforts to "fit" treatments to patients emphasize the roles of interventions, participant factors, and contextual/relationship factors. For these complex interactions, any of which reflect factors that cannot be randomly assigned, randomized clinical trials (RCT) protocols are inappropriate as a "gold standard". Several studies are presented which illustrate not only the predictive power of incorporating both treatment mediators and moderators into the realm of psychotherapy study, but the value of a multi-method approach to research. Converging studies moreover, provide a way to incorporate matching algorithms into decisions about assigning optimal treatments.

Unique and shared techniques in cognitive-behavioural and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy: a content analysis of randomised trials on depression

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapeutic interventions assume that specific techniques are used in treatments, which are responsible for changes in the client's symptoms. This assumption also holds true for meta-analyses, where evidence for specific interventions and techniques is compiled. However, it has also been argued that different treatments share important techniques and that an upcoming consensus about useful treatment strategies is leading to a greater integration of treatments. This makes assumptions about the effectiveness of specific interventions ingredients questionable if the shared (common) techniques are more often used in interventions than are the unique techniques. This study investigated the unique or shared techniques in RCTs of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Psychotherapeutic techniques were coded from 42 masked treatment descriptions of RCTs in the field of depression (1979-2010). CBT techniques were often used in studies identified as either CBT or STPP. However, STPP techniques were only used in STPP-identified studies. Empirical clustering of treatment descriptions did not confirm the original distinction of CBT versus STPP, but instead showed substantial heterogeneity within both approaches. Extraction of psychotherapeutic techniques from the treatment descriptions is feasible and could be used as a content-based approach to classify treatments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Narrative change in psychotherapy: differences between good and bad outcome cases in cognitive, narrative, and prescriptive therapies

This study aimed to clarify the relationship between changes in the patients' narratives and therapeutic outcomes. Two patients were selected from three psychotherapeutic models (cognitive, narrative, and prescriptive therapies), one with good therapeutic outcome and the other with bad therapeutic outcome. Sessions from the initial, middle, and final phases for each patient were evaluated in terms of narrative structural coherence, process complexity, and content diversity. Differences between patients' total narrative production were found at the end of the therapeutic process. Good outcome cases presented a higher statistically significant total narrative change than poor outcome cases.

Responsiveness – Eine entscheidende Prozessvariable in der Psychotherapie

Zusammenfassung. Hintergrund: Responsiveness, definiert als Sich-Einstellen des Therapeuten an Besonderheiten eines Patienten im Therapieprozess, ist kein einfach zu messendes Merkmal. Ziel: In diesem Beitrag wird auf verschiedene inhaltliche Konzepte zur Responsiveness ebenso eingegangen wie auf methodische Aspekte des indirekten und des direkten Erfassens. Vorgehen: Der Ansatz der Motivorientierten Beziehungsgestaltung wird benutzt, um Möglichkeiten der direkten Beurteilung von Responsiveness und des Inbeziehungsetzens zu Patienten- und Outcomevariablen darzustellen.

Virtual reality in psychotherapy training

Virtual reality (VR) has myriad applications to psychotherapy training and has manifold adjunctive or primary applications to psychotherapeutic treatments. Unfortunately, VR technology has not yet advanced to a point where many of these applications are readily available or even affordable; however, alternatives are available, and the creative investigator may build upon existing, available, and affordable technology to develop simple VR systems. Eventually, more sophisticated equipment and design features that increasingly approximate the VR three-dimensional emersion environments may be added in a stepwise fashion to create more realistic iterations of the VR psychotherapeutic environment. In our initial VR training endeavor, elements of the empirically supported and multifaceted Systematic Treatment Selection model (STS, Beutler & Clarkin, 1990; Beutler, Clarkin, & Bongar, 2000; Beutler & Harwood, 2000) were chosen as training criteria and incorporated into our VR training system to demonstrate both its feasibility and practicality. This article outlines our initial endeavor in the development of a VR system for training in psychotherapy and summarizes STS training-relevant research findings. Future directions for the applications of VR technology to both training and treatment are provided.

Measuring coping style and resistance among Spanish and Argentine samples: development of the Systematic Treatment Selection Self-Report in Spanish

This article reports the reliability and validity of the Coping Style and Resistance subscales of the Systematic Treatment Selection Self-Report (STS-SR) scale after its translation to Spanish. The English versions of the STS system identify eight empirically derived patient variables that have been found to moderate the effects of various classes of mental health treatment procedures. Research on these dimensions as treatment indicators, as assessed both by clinicians and through patient self-reports, indicates that they increase the efficiency and effectiveness of treatment among English-speaking samples. This article reports a study of the convergent and discriminant validity of two of the subscales, Coping Style and Trait Resistance. The subscales were translated English into Spanish and administered to large Spanish and Argentine subject pools, along with established measures of the same and related constructs. Results revealed that both scales possessed good internal consistency and adequate discriminant validity. The implications of these findings are discussed.