The Role of Daily Steps in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial of a 6-Month Internet-Based, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Intervention for Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports physical activity (PA) as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Few studies, however, have examined the relationship between objectively measured PA and MDD treatment outcomes using prospective data. OBJECTIVE: This study is a secondary analysis of data from a 24-week internet-based, mindfulness-based cognitive behavioral therapy program for MDD. The purpose of this analysis was twofold: (1) to examine average daily step counts in relation to MDD symptom improvement, and whether pain moderated this relationship; and (2) to examine whether changes in step activity (ie, step trajectories) during treatment were associated with baseline symptoms and symptom improvement. METHODS: Patients from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health were part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of internet-based, mindfulness-based cognitive behavioral therapy for young adults (aged 18-30 years old) with MDD. Data from 20 participants who had completed the intervention were analyzed. PA, in the form of objectively measured steps, was measured using the Fitbit-HR Charge 2 (Fitbit Inc), and self-reported depression severity was measured with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Linear regression analysis was used to test PA's relationship with depression improvement and the moderating effect of pain severity and pain interference. Growth curve and multivariable regression models were used to test longitudinal associations. RESULTS: Participants walked an average of 8269 steps per day, and each additional +1000-step difference between participants was significantly associated with a 2.66-point greater improvement (reduction) in BDI-II, controlling for anxiety, pain interference, and adherence to Fitbit monitoring (P=.02). Pain severity appeared to moderate (reduce) the positive effect of average daily steps on BDI-II improvement (P=.03). Higher baseline depression and anxiety symptoms predicted less positive step trajectories throughout treatment (Ps≤.001), and more positive step trajectories early in the trial predicted greater MDD improvement at the end of the trial (Ps<.04). However, step trajectories across the full duration of the trial did not significantly predict MDD improvement (Ps=.40). CONCLUSIONS: This study used objective measurements to demonstrate positive associations between PA and depression improvement in the context of cognitive behavioral treatment. Pain appeared to moderate this relationship, and baseline symptoms of anxiety and depression predicted PA trajectories. The findings inform future interventions for major depression. Future research with larger samples should consider additional moderators of PA-related treatment success and the extent to which outcomes are related to PA change in multimodal interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT03406052; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03406052. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/11591.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".