Skip to main content
×
×
Home

What makes self-help interventions effective in the management of depressive symptoms? Meta-analysis and meta-regression

  • JUDITH GELLATLY (a1), PETER BOWER (a2), SUE HENNESSY (a3), DAVID RICHARDS (a3), SIMON GILBODY (a3) and KARINA LOVELL (a1)...
Abstract
ABSTRACTBackground

Although self-help interventions are effective in treating depression, less is known about the factors that determine effectiveness (i.e. moderators of effect). This study sought to determine whether the content of self-help interventions, the study populations or aspects of study design were the most important moderators.

Method

Randomized trials of the effectiveness of self-help interventions versus controls in the treatment of depressive symptoms were identified using previous reviews and electronic database searches. Data on moderators (i.e. patient populations, study design, intervention content) and outcomes were extracted and analysed using meta-regression.

Results

Thirty-four studies were identified with 39 comparisons. Study design factors associated with greater effectiveness were unclear allocation concealment, observer-rated outcome measures and waiting-list control groups. Greater effectiveness was also associated with recruitment in non-clinical settings, patients with existing depression (rather than those ‘at risk’), contact with a therapist (i.e. guided self-help) and the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques. However, only guided self-help remained significant in the multivariate analysis [regression coefficient 0·36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·05–0·68, p=0·03]. In the subset of guided studies, there were no significant associations between outcomes and the session length, content, delivery mode or therapist background.

Conclusions

The results provide some insights into moderators of self-help interventions, which might assist in the design of future interventions. However, the present study did not provide a comprehensive description, and other research methods might be required to identify factors associated with the effectiveness of self-help.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Address for correspondence: Dr Peter Bower, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. (Email: peter.bower@manchester.ac.uk)
References
Hide All
Ackerson J., Scogin F., McKendree-Smith N. & Lyman R. (1998). Cognitive bibliotherapy for mild and moderate adolescent depressive symptomatology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66, 685690.
Anderson L., Lewis G., Araya R., Elgie R., Harrison G., Proudfoot J., Schmidt U., Sharp D., Weightman A. & Williams C. (2005). Self-help books for depression: how can practitioners and patients make the right choice? British Journal of General Practice 55, 387392.
Baron R. & Kenny D. (1986). The moderator–mediator distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 11731182.
Bower P., Richards D. & Lovell K. (2001). The clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-help treatments for anxiety and depressive disorders in primary care: a systematic review. British Journal of General Practice 51, 838845.
Churchill R., Hunot V., Corney R., Knapp M., McGuire H., Tylee A. & Wessely S. (2002). A systematic review of controlled trials of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brief psychological treatments for depression. Health Technology Assessment Vol. 5, No. 35.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd edn). Lawrence Erlbaum: New Jersey.
Cook T. & Campbell D. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation – Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand McNally: Chicago.
Cuijpers P. (1997). Bibliotherapy in unipolar depression: a meta-analysis. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 28, 139147.
Den Boer P., Wiersma D. & Van Den Bosch R. (2004). Why is self-help neglected in the treatment of emotional disorders? A meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine 34, 959971.
Dickersin K., Manheimer E., Wieland S., Robinson K., Lefebvre C., McDonald S. & CENTRAL Development Group (2002). Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of Controlled Clinical Trials. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25, 3864.
Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M. & Minder C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 315, 629634.
Elliott R. (1984). A discovery-oriented approach to significant change events in psychological therapies: interpersonal process recall and comprehensive process analysis. In Patterns of Change: Intensive Analysis of Psychological Therapies Process (ed. Rice L. & Greenberg L.), pp. 249286. Guilford Press: London.
Elliott R., Fischer C. & Rennie D. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 38, 213229.
Gotzsche P. (2000). Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 321, 585586.
Gould R. & Clum G. (1993). A meta-analysis of self-help treatment approaches. Clinical Psychology Review 13, 169186.
Higgins J. & Thompson S. (2004). Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine 23, 16631682.
Higgins J., Thompson S., Deeks J. & Altman D. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 327, 557560.
Hollis S. & Campbell F. (1999). What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 319, 670674.
Jacobson N., Dobson K., Truax P., Addis M., Koerner K., Gollan J., Gortner E. & Prince S. (1996). A component analysis of cognitive-behavioural treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 64, 295304.
Lambert P., Sutton A., Abrams K. & Jones D. (2002). A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 55, 8694.
Lipsey M. (1990). Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental Research. Sage: Newbury Park.
Lipsey M. & Wilson D. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Sage: Newbury Park.
Little P., Dorward M., Warner G., Moore M., Stephens K., Senior J. & Kendrick T. (2004). Randomised controlled trial of effect of leaflets to empower patients in consultations in primary care. British Medical Journal 328, 441444.
Lovell K. & Richards D. (2000). Multiple Access Points and Levels of Entry (MAPLE): ensuring choice, accessibility and equity for CBT services. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy 28, 379391.
Marrs R. (1995). A meta-analysis of bibliotherapy studies. American Journal of Community Psychology 23, 843870.
McKendree-Smith N., Floyd M. & Scogin F. (2003). Self-administered treatments for depression: a review. Journal of Clinical Psychology 59, 275288.
Mead N., MacDonald W., Bower P., Lovell K., Richards D. & Bucknall A. (2005). The clinical effectiveness of guided self-help versus waiting list control in the management of anxiety and depression: a randomised controlled trial. Psychological Medicine 35, 16331643.
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (2005). Depression: Management of Depression in Primary and Secondary Care – NICE Guidance. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=235213). Accessed 19 January 2005.
Newman M., Erickson T., Przeworski A. & Dzus E. (2003). Self-help and minimal-contact therapies for anxiety disorders: is human contact necessary for therapeutic efficacy? Journal of Clinical Psychology 59, 251274.
Proudfoot J., Ryden C., Everitt B., Shapiro D., Goldberg D., Mann A., Tylee A., Marks I. & Gray J. (2004). Clinical efficacy of computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in primary care: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 185, 4654.
Rahe R., Taylor C., Tolles R., Newhall M., Veach T. & Bryson S. (2002). A novel stress and coping workplace program reduces illness and healthcare utilization. Psychosomatic Medicine 64, 278286.
Reid M., Glazener C., Murray G. & Taylor G. (2002). A two-centred pragmatic randomised controlled trial of two interventions of postnatal support. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 109, 11641170.
Richards A., Barkham M., Cahill J., Richards D., Williams C. & Heywood P. (2003). PHASE: a randomised, controlled trial of supervised self-help cognitive behavioural therapy in primary care. British Journal of General Practice 53, 764770.
Rosenthal R. (1979). The ‘File Drawer Problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86, 638641.
Royle P. & Waugh N. (2005). A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions: a comparison with more exhaustive strategies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 5, 23.
Schulz K., Chalmers I., Hayes R. & Altman D. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 273, 408412.
Schulz K. & Grimes D. (2002). Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet 359, 614618.
Scogin F., Bynum J., Stephens G. & Calhoon S. (1990). Efficacy of self-administered treatment programs: meta-analytic review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 21, 4247.
Scogin F., Hanson A. & Welsh D. (2003). Self-administered treatment in stepped-care models of depression treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychology 59, 341349.
Shadish W. & Baldwin S. (2005). Effects of behavioral marital therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73, 614.
Smith M., Glass G. & Miller T. (1980). The Benefits of Psychotherapy. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Sutton A., Abrams K., Jones D., Sheldon T. & Song F. (1998). Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technology Assessment Vol. 2, No. 19.
Thompson S. & Higgins J. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine 21, 15591573.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Psychological Medicine
  • ISSN: 0033-2917
  • EISSN: 1469-8978
  • URL: /core/journals/psychological-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Gellatly Supplementary Material
Appendix.pdf

 PDF (110 KB)
110 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 44
Total number of PDF views: 318 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1784 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.