A Randomized Controlled Trial of Psychoeducation or Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Bipolar Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bipolar disorder is insufficiently controlled by medication, so several adjunctive psychosocial interventions have been tested. Few studies have compared these psychosocial treatments, all of which are lengthy, expensive, and difficult to disseminate. We compared the relative effectiveness of a brief psychoeducation group intervention to a more comprehensive and longer individual cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention, measuring longitudinal outcome in mood burden in bipolar disorder. METHOD: This single-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted between June 2002 and September 2006. A total of 204 participants (ages 18-64 years) with DSM-IV bipolar disorder type I or II participated from 4 Canadian academic centers. Subjects were recruited via advertisements or physician referral when well or minimally symptomatic, with few exclusionary criteria to enhance generalizability. Participants were assigned to receive either 20 individual sessions of cognitive-behavioral therapy or 6 sessions of group psychoeducation. The primary outcome of symptom course and morbidity was assessed prospectively over 72 weeks using the Longitudinal Interval Follow-up Evaluation, which yields depression and mania symptom burden scores for each week. RESULTS: Both treatments had similar outcomes with respect to reduction of symptom burden and the likelihood of relapse. Eight percent of subjects dropped out prior to receiving psychoeducation, while 64% were treatment completers; rates were similar for cognitive-behavioral therapy (6% and 66%, respectively). Psychoeducation cost $180 per subject compared to cognitive-behavioral therapy at $1,200 per subject. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer treatment duration and individualized treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy did not show a significantly greater clinical benefit compared to group psychoeducation. Psychoeducation is less expensive to provide and requires less clinician training to deliver, suggesting its comparative attractiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00188838.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".