Reviewbronze2009

Psychological treatment of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis

Pim J. Cuijpers · Annemieke van Straten · Anneke van Schaik · Gerhard Andersson

172 citations0/0 files storedBritish Journal of General Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Mental Health Treatment and Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although most depressive disorders are treated in primary care and several studies have examined the effects of psychological treatment in primary care, hardly any meta-analytic research has been conducted in which the results of these studies are integrated. AIM: To integrate the results of randomised controlled trials of psychological treatment of depression in adults in primary care, and to compare these results to psychological treatments in other settings. DESIGN OF STUDY: A meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of psychological treatments of adult depression in primary care. SETTING: Primary care. METHOD: An existing database of studies on psychological treatments of adult depression that was built on systematic searches in PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Dissertation Abstracts International was used. Randomised trials were included in which the effects of psychological treatments on adult primary care patients with depression were compared to a control condition. RESULTS: In the 15 included studies, the standardised mean effect size of psychological treatment versus control groups was 0.31 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.45), which corresponds with a numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5.75. Studies in which patients were referred by their GP for treatment had significantly higher effect sizes (d = 0.43; NNT = 4.20) than studies in which patients were recruited through systematic screening (d = 0.13, not significantly different from zero; NNT = 13.51). CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of studies was relatively low and the quality varied, psychological treatment of depression was found to be effective in primary care, especially when GPs refer patients with depression for treatment.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 172 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses 1961An Inventory for Measuring Depression 1960A RATING SCALE FOR DEPRESSION 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 1994Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of DSM-III-R Psychiatric Disorders in the United States 2006Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030 2002How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?

Cited by

2023Psychological treatment of depression: A systematic overview of a ‘Meta-Analytic Research Domain’2012Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2019Cognitive behavioral therapy for primary care depression and anxiety: a secondary meta-analytic review using robust variance estimation in meta-regression 2018Who benefits from psychotherapies for adult depression? A meta-analytic update of the evidence 2013Changes in Psychotherapy Utilization Among Veterans With Depression, Anxiety, and PTSD

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.