Elsevier

Journal of Affective Disorders

Volume 164, 1 August 2014, Pages 155-164
Journal of Affective Disorders

Review
Efficacy and acceptability of group cognitive behavioral therapy for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.023Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

Despite treatment guidelines for depression placing group cognitive behavioral therapy (group CBT) between low- and high-intensity evidence-based psychological interventions, the validity of the placement remains unknown. We aimed to systematically review evidence for the efficacy and acceptability of group CBT in patients with depression compared to four intensity levels of psychosocial interventions.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science and hand-searched the references in identified publications. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing group CBT with four levels of interventions for adult patients with depression. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias.

Results

From 7953 records, we identified 35 studies that compared group CBT to non-active (k=30), low-intensity (k=2), middle-intensity (k=8), and high-intensity (k=1) interventions. Group CBT had a superior efficacy (standardized mean difference [SMD]=−0.68) and a similar acceptability compared to non-active controls. Pooled results showed a small but non-significant excess of group CBT relative to middle-intensity interventions (SMD=−0.21).

Limitations

Over 60% of studies did not report enough information to judge selection and selective reporting bias.

Conclusions

These results suggest the need for high-quality trials of group CBT compared to low- and high-intensity interventions.

Introduction

Depression has a significant impact on individuals and society due to its high prevalence, early-age onset, and high persistence (Kessler, 2012, Murray et al., 2012, Okumura and Higuchi, 2011). Depression is nearly twice as prevalent in individuals with chronic physical health problems as in those without (Kessler, 2012, Okumura and Ito, 2013). Regardless of comorbid physical illness, the treatment guidelines advocate a stepped care model to guide the management of depression (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009b, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009a). In the stepped care model, patients with mild to moderate depression start with low-intensity psychosocial interventions, such as computerized cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), guided self-help, and physical activity programs. If a patient does not benefit from low-intensity interventions, they are stepped-up to high-intensity interventions, such as medications and/or face-to-face individual psychotherapies. The aim of the stepped care model is to maximize the effectiveness of an intervention considering limited medical resources.

Group CBT is an appealing psychological intervention given its potential cost- and time-effectiveness for treating many patients (Tucker and Oei, 2007). In the stepped care model, group CBT is placed between low-intensity and high-intensity interventions (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009a). Given the duration and staffing of such groups, group CBT for patients with mild depression is viewed as less cost-effective than low-intensity psychosocial interventions and as more cost-effective than individual CBT (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009a). This placement of group CBT, however, is not validated in the stepped care model because relevant data on comparative efficacy and acceptability are lacking.

Recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have revealed the efficacy of group CBT for depression (Cuijpers et al., 2009, Feng et al., 2012, Huntley et al., 2012, Krishna et al., 2013, Krishna et al., 2011). However, there was no distinction between the use of non-active controls, low-intensity, middle-intensity (a term we coined to refer to group-based psychosocial interventions), and high-intensity interventions as comparators in any of these studies. In addition, little attention has been given to acceptability of group CBT (Krishna et al., 2011). Furthermore, two of the meta-analyses focused exclusively on patients aged 50 years or older (Krishna et al., 2013, Krishna et al., 2011) and one of the meta-analyses focused only on a specific protocol of group CBT (Cuijpers et al., 2009). Finally, one of the meta-analyses had questionable validity because they defined some trials of individual CBT as group CBT (Feng et al., 2012).

In the present study, we aimed to systematically review evidence for the efficacy and acceptability of group CBT in patients with depression compared to four intensity levels of psychosocial interventions: non-active, low-intensity, middle-intensity, and high-intensity interventions.

Section snippets

Types of studies

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review. A trial was considered quasi-RCT when treatment allocation was decided through methods such as alternate days of the week. Single group studies and non-randomized studies were excluded.

Types of participants

We included participants aged 18 years or older with depression assessed by standardized clinical interviews, standardized self-report questionnaires, or physicians׳ diagnoses. Our operational definitions

Study selection

Of the 7953 records retrieved from the electronic search, 40 articles were potentially eligible (Fig. 1). Five articles were excluded because they were supplemental studies (Allart-van Dam et al., 2007, Geschwind et al., 2012, Mergl et al., 2011, Peden et al., 2005, Spek et al., 2008). Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (n=3356). One studies did not report sufficient data to calculate effect size (Klausner et al., 1998); therefore, 34 studies were retained for quantitative synthesis

Discussion

This review included 35 studies that examined the efficacy and acceptability of group CBT in patients with depression compared to four intensity levels of psychosocial interventions. Our review showed group CBT had a superior efficacy (SMD=−0.68, 95% CI [−0.83, −0.54]) and a similar acceptability (RR=1.05, 95% CI [0.81, 1.36]) compared to non-active controls. The efficacy on the HAM-D was 2.5 points better in group CBT than in non-active controls; and thus the mean difference almost meets

Limitations

Our review has three important limitations. First, the 35 studies included had several methodological limitations. In particular, over 60% of studies did not report enough information to make judgment about selection bias and selective outcome reporting bias. Second, articles not written in English and published before 1993 were not included in this review, although we conducted the systematic search strategies across four databases. Third, definitions of group CBT varied across studies; most

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found substantial evidence that group CBT has a superior efficacy compared to non-active treatments and a similar acceptability. There was insufficient evidence to conclude whether group CBT has a superior efficacy and a similar acceptability compared to low-intensity or high-intensity interventions. This review highlights the need for enhancing reporting and methodological quality of trials that compare group CBT with low-intensity and high-intensity interventions, to

Role of funding source

Funding for analyzing and writing this article was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (No.: 23730688) by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Drs. Ann Peden, David Hellerstein, Douglas Nance, Geschwind Nicole, Lisa Samstag, Mary Rayens, Roland Mergl, and, Ulrich Hegerl for providing us with unpublished data.

References (73)

  • Y. Okumura et al.

    Out-of-pocket expenditure burdens in patients with cardiovascular conditions and psychological distress: a nationwide cross-sectional study

    Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry

    (2013)
  • V. Spek et al.

    Predictors of outcome of group and internet-based cognitive behavior therapy

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2008)
  • F.L. Vázquez et al.

    Comparison of relaxation training with a cognitive-behavioural intervention for indicated prevention of depression in university students: a randomized controlled trial

    J. Psychiatric Res.

    (2012)
  • I. Wahl et al.

    Standardization of depression measurement: a common metric was developed for 11 self-report depression measures

    J. Clin. Epidemiol.

    (2014)
  • J.A. Yesavage et al.

    Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report

    J. Psychiatr. Res.

    (1982)
  • J. Archer et al.

    Collaborative care for depression and anxiety problems

    Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.

    (2012)
  • A.T. Beck et al.

    An inventory for measuring depression

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1961)
  • J.I. Bright et al.

    Professional and paraprofessional group treatments for depression: a comparison of cognitive-behavioral and mutual support interventions

    J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.

    (1999)
  • P. Chadwick

    Person-Based Cognitive Therapy for Distressing Psychosis

    (2006)
  • D. Chetty et al.

    Effectiveness of a nurse facilitated cognitive group intervention among mild to moderately-depressed-women in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

    Afr. J. Psychiatry

    (2013)
  • A. Chiesa et al.

    Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy versus psycho-education for patients with major depression who did not achieve remission following antidepressant treatment: a preliminary analysis

    J. Altern. Complement. Med.

    (2012)
  • H. Cramer et al.

    Group cognitive behavioural therapy for women with depression: pilot and feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial using mixed methods

    BMC Psychiatry

    (2011)
  • P. Cuijpers et al.

    Are individual and group treatments equally effective in the treatment of depression in adults? A meta-analysis

    Eur. J. Psychiatry

    (2008)
  • R.L. Evans et al.

    Comparison of brief group therapies for depressed cancer patients receiving radiation treatment

    Public Health Rep.

    (1995)
  • C.Y. Feng et al.

    The effect of cognitive behavioral group therapy for depression: a meta-analysis 2000–2010

    Worldviews Evid.-Based Nurs.

    (2012)
  • J.C. Fournier et al.

    Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-analysis

    J. Am. Med. Assoc.

    (2010)
  • N. Geschwind et al.

    Mindfulness training increases momentary positive emotions and reward experience in adults vulnerable to depression: a randomized controlled trial

    J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.

    (2011)
  • N. Geschwind et al.

    Efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in relation to prior history of depression: randomised controlled trial

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (2012)
  • D. Goldberg et al.

    A User׳s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire

    (1991)
  • A.M. Hamdan-Mansour et al.

    Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy on depressive symptomatology, stress and coping strategies among Jordanian university students

    Issues Ment. Health Nurs.

    (2009)
  • M. Hamilton

    A rating scale for depression

    J. Neurol., Neurosurg., Psychiatry

    (1960)
  • R. Haringsma et al.

    Effectiveness of the Coping with Depression (CWD) course for older adults provided by the community-based mental health care system in the Netherlands: a randomized controlled field trial

    Int. Psychogeriatr.

    (2006)
  • U. Hegerl et al.

    Effects of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy in depressed primary-care patients: a randomized, controlled trial including a patients’ choice arm

    Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol.

    (2010)
  • D.J. Hellerstein et al.

    Adding group psychotherapy to medication treatment in dysthymia: a randomized prospective pilot study

    J. Psychother. Pract. Res.

    (2001)
  • J. Higgins et al.

    Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies

    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]

    (2011)
  • A.L. Huntley et al.

    Group psychological therapies for depression in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (2012)
  • Cited by (60)

    • Antenatal depression: Efficacy of a pre-post therapy study and repercussions in motor development of children during the first 18 months postpartum. Study: “Pregnancy care, healthy baby”

      2022, Journal of Psychiatric Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, psychotherapy has been shown to be a safe treatment in this period, and the brief protocols are the most recommended due to performance, lower cost and satisfactory results. With that in mind, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is one of the forms of intervention that has been highlighted as effective in reducing depressive symptoms and bringing patients into remission (Okumura and Ichikura, 2014; Shortis et al., 2020; Trivedi, 2014). It is understood that pregnancy brings with it physiological, behavioral, social and emotional changes that accentuate introspection and distancing from the external world.

    • The effects of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) on mental health parameters and C-reactive protein: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

      2020, Complementary Therapies in Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Recently, cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for mild to moderate depression represents an attractive option for major depressive disorder and insomnia.6 In a meta-analysis conducted by Okumura and Ichikura,7 CBT had better performance compared to non-active treatments. But this treatment is generally scarce by noncompliance and few trained therapists.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text