The Ghent Psychotherapy Study: A Pragmatic, Stratified, Randomized Parallel Trial into the Differential Efficacy of Psychodynamic and Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions in Dependent and Self-Critical Depressive Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Different types of psychotherapy are effective for treating major depressive disorder across groups yet show large within-group differences. Patient personality style is considered a potentially useful variable for treatment matching. OBJECTIVE: This study is the first experimental test of the interaction between therapeutic approach and patients' dependent versus self-critical personality styles. METHODS: A pragmatic stratified parallel trial was carried out with 100 adult patients diagnosed with DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder. They were randomly assigned to short-term (16-20 sessions) cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). Patients were assessed at baseline, during therapy, post-therapy, and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. Primary outcome is depression severity measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression posttreatment. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com), number ISRCTN17130982. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat sample consisted of 100 participants; 40 with self-critical and 60 with dependent personality styles were randomized to either CBT (n = 50) or STPP (n = 50). We observed no interaction effect (-0.34 [-6.14, 5.46]) between therapy and personality style and found no evidence for a difference in effectiveness between the treatments in general in terms of symptom reduction and maintained benefits at 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that dependent versus self-critical personality styles moderate the relation between treatment and outcome in depression. Research using individual patient data could gain further insight into why specific therapeutic approaches work better for specific patients.

To manualize, or not to manualize: Is that still the question? A systematic review of empirical evidence for manual superiority in psychological treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Institutional promotion of psychotherapy manuals as a requirement for evidence-based treatments (EBTs) yields the assumption that manualized treatment is more effective than nonmanualized treatment. This systematic review examines empirical evidence for this claim. METHODS: An electronic database search identified studies that directly or indirectly compared manual-based and non-manual-based treatment. RESULTS: Six studies directly compared manualized and nonmanualized treatment (Hypothesis 1). None support manual superiority. Eight meta-analyses indirectly assessed effect sizes of manual-based treatment and control groups (Hypothesis 2). Three support manual superiority, five do not. One meta-analysis and 15 further studies addressed manual adherence as an indirect indicator of manual efficacy (Hypothesis 3). The meta-analysis concluded that manual adherence does not affect outcome, additional studies provided inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: Manualized treatment is not empirically supported as more effective than nonmanualized treatment. While manual-based treatment may be attractive as a research tool, it should not be promoted as being superior to nonmanualized psychotherapy for clinical practice.

A Lacanian view on Balint group meetings: a qualitative analysis of two case presentations.

BACKGROUND: GPs' subjectivity is an intrinsic instrument in their daily work. By offering GPs a platform to present and discuss difficult interactions with patients, Balint group work be might provide them an opportunity to explore and articulate aspects of their subjectivity. In order to get a more profound understanding of what participation in a Balint group can offer, we focused on the process of change that can be observed during Balint group meetings. To that end, this study scrutinized two Balint group case discussions on a micro-level. METHOD: Two cases were selected from a larger data set of 68 audio-taped case discussions in four Balint groups. In order to shed light on the type of change that characterizes the presenter's narrative, we used Lacan's theoretical distinction between imaginary and symbolic modes of relating to the other. RESULTS: In both case discussions, the GPs presenting the case initially appeared to be stuck in a fixed image of a situation, referred to as 'imaginary relating to the other.' Through a range of interactions with the group, the presenters were encouraged to explore different subject positions, which allowed them to broaden their initial image of the situation and to discover other issues at stake. This was referred to as a more symbolic way of relating to the other. CONCLUSION: This study throws light on the type of change Balint group participation allows for and on the way this might be achieved. We conclude that Balint group work is potentially beneficial to the participating GPs as well as to the relationship with their patients.

Research on Balint groups: A literature review.

OBJECTIVE: As the scientific literature on Balint groups (BGs) is scattered, this paper provides an overview of the literature on BGs published in peer-reviewed journals. Study characteristics are analyzed and the principal research topics are discussed. METHODS: 'Web of Science' and 'Pubmed' databases were searched and all English-language studies on BGs (empirical and non-empirical) were included. RESULTS: Of the 94 articles included, 35 are empirical studies adopting a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methodology. The research topics that emerged include outcome, characteristics of BG participants, themes addressed in BGs, BG processes, leadership and BG evaluations. The remaining articles were classified as historical articles, reports and reflective articles, for which the main discussion themes are presented. CONCLUSION: Research on BGs proves to be diverse, scarce and often methodologically weak. However, indications of the value of BG work were found. Therefore, further research is strongly indicated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Points of interest that could to be further considered by BG workers and researchers are for instance long-term BG participation and 'modified Balint groups'. Recommendations for future research on BGs are provided.