Is Immediate Adjunctive CBT More Beneficial than Delayed CBT in Treating Depression?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is an efficacious first-line therapy for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Due to the limited accessibility of CBT, long wait lists result in delayed treatment, which may affect treatment outcomes. The goal of this pilot study was to obtain preliminary data from a randomized controlled trial to determine whether delayed CBT reduces the effectiveness of the therapy compared to immediate CBT in patients with MDD receiving pharmacotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive immediate CBT (n=18) or to begin CBT after 6 months (n=20) and received 14 weekly sessions, followed by two additional booster sessions. During the active treatment months, patients in the immediate group demonstrated reductions in scores on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) that were similar to those in the delayed CBT group. However, when the analysis was performed using only data from patients in the delayed group who were still in a depressive episode, there was an overall greater decrease in BDI-II scores in the immediate group vs. the delayed group over the active treatment months, but not specifically at the 6-month endpoint. These findings suggest delays in depression treatment, similar to what occurs with real-world wait list times, may not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of CBT in patients who are already receiving treatment as usual. However, such delays may affect the effectiveness of CBT in those patients who remain depressed during the time delay. A larger trial is necessary to confirm these findings. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2015;21:107-113).
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".