IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0050202.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression in Patients Receiving Disability Benefits: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shanil Ebrahim
  • Luis Montoya
  • Wanda Truong
  • Sandy Hsu
  • Mostafa Kamal el Din
  • Alonso Carrasco-Labra
  • Jason W Busse
  • Stephen D Walter
  • Diane Heels-Ansdell
  • Rachel Couban
  • Irene Patelis-Siotis
  • Marg Bellman
  • L Esther de Graaf
  • David J A Dozois
  • Peter J Bieling
  • Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically summarize the randomized trial evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in patients with depression in receipt of disability benefits in comparison to those not receiving disability benefits. Data Sources: All relevant RCTs from a database of randomized controlled and comparative studies examining the effects of psychotherapy for adult depression (http://www.evidencebasedpsychotherapies.org), electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCINFO, AMED, CINAHL and CENTRAL) to June 2011, and bibliographies of all relevant articles. Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants and Intervention: Adult patients with major depression, randomly assigned to CBT versus minimal/no treatment or care-as-usual. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: Three teams of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, completed title and abstract screening, full text review and data extraction. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to summarize data. Results: Of 92 eligible trials, 70 provided author contact information; of these 56 (80%) were successfully contacted to establish if they captured receipt of benefits as a baseline characteristic; 8 recorded benefit status, and 3 enrolled some patients in receipt of benefits, of which 2 provided individual patient data. Including both patients receiving and not receiving disability benefits, 2 trials (227 patients) suggested a possible reduction in depression with CBT, as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory, mean difference [MD] (95% confidence interval [CI]) = −2.61 (−5.28, 0.07), p = 0.06; minimally important difference of 5. The effect appeared larger, though not significantly, in those in receipt of benefits (34 patients) versus not receiving benefits (193 patients); MD (95% CI) = −4.46 (−12.21, 3.30), p = 0.26. Conclusions: Our data does not support the hypothesis that CBT has smaller effects in depressed patients receiving disability benefits versus other patients. Given that the confidence interval is wide, a decreased effect is still possible, though if the difference exists, it is likely to be small.

Suggested Citation

  • Shanil Ebrahim & Luis Montoya & Wanda Truong & Sandy Hsu & Mostafa Kamal el Din & Alonso Carrasco-Labra & Jason W Busse & Stephen D Walter & Diane Heels-Ansdell & Rachel Couban & Irene Patelis-Siotis , 2012. "Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression in Patients Receiving Disability Benefits: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0050202
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050202
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050202&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0050202?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0050202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.