MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292466683 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2022.560

Efficacy and moderators of cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adults with depression: study protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

2022· review· en· W4292466683 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Driessen, Zachary D. Cohen, Lorenzo Lorenzo‐Luaces, Steven D. Hollon, David Richards, Keith S. Dobson, Sona Dimidjian, Jaime Delgadillo, Fernando L. Vázquez, Kathleen R. McNamara, John J. Horan, Pauline Gardner, Tian P. S. Oei, Anuj H. P. Mehta, Jos W. R. Twisk, Ioana A. Cristea, Pim Cuijpers

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institutes of HealthMinistry of Education, IndiaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsycINFOMeta-analysisPsychologyClinical psychologyCognitionAnxietyDepression (economics)Systematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMEDLINECognitive behavioral therapyCognitive therapyPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cognitive therapy and behavioural activation are both widely applied and effective psychotherapies for depression, but it is unclear which works best for whom. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis allows for examining moderators at the participant level and can provide more precise effect estimates than conventional meta-analysis, which is based on study-level data. AIMS: This article describes the protocol for a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis that aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adults with depression, and to explore moderators of treatment effect. (PROSPERO: CRD42022341602). METHOD: Systematic literature searches will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing cognitive therapy and behavioural activation for adult acute-phase depression. Investigators of these trials will be invited to share their participant-level data. One-stage IPD meta-analyses will be conducted with mixed-effects models to assess treatment effects and to examine various available demographic, clinical and psychological participant characteristics as potential moderators. The primary outcome measure will be depressive symptom level at treatment completion. Secondary outcomes will include post-treatment anxiety, interpersonal functioning and quality of life, as well as follow-up outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first IPD meta-analysis concerning cognitive therapy versus behavioural activation for adult depression. This study has the potential to enhance our knowledge of depression treatment by using state-of-the-art statistical techniques to compare the efficacy of two widely used psychotherapies, and by shedding more light on which of these treatments might work best for whom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.039
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.770
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207