Cargando…

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation

OBJECTIVE: To explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative intervie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Finning, Katie, Richards, David A, Moore, Lucy, Ekers, David, McMillan, Dean, Farrand, Paul A, O’Mahen, Heather A, Watkins, Edward R, Wright, Kim A, Fletcher, Emily, Rhodes, Shelley, Woodhouse, Rebecca, Wray, Faye
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Open 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28408544
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014161
_version_ 1783254807872536576
author Finning, Katie
Richards, David A
Moore, Lucy
Ekers, David
McMillan, Dean
Farrand, Paul A
O’Mahen, Heather A
Watkins, Edward R
Wright, Kim A
Fletcher, Emily
Rhodes, Shelley
Woodhouse, Rebecca
Wray, Faye
author_facet Finning, Katie
Richards, David A
Moore, Lucy
Ekers, David
McMillan, Dean
Farrand, Paul A
O’Mahen, Heather A
Watkins, Edward R
Wright, Kim A
Fletcher, Emily
Rhodes, Shelley
Woodhouse, Rebecca
Wray, Faye
author_sort Finning, Katie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews analysed using a framework approach. PARTICIPANTS: 36 participants with major depressive disorder purposively sampled from a randomised controlled trial of BA versus CBT (the COBRA trial). SETTING: Primary care psychological therapies services in Devon, Durham and Leeds, UK. RESULTS: Elements of therapy considered to be beneficial included its length and regularity, the opportunity to learn and not dwelling on the past. Homework was an important, although challenging aspect of treatment. Therapists were perceived as experts who played an important role in treatment. For some participants the most important element of therapy was having someone to talk to, but for others the specific factors associated with BA and CBT were crucial, with behavioural change considered important for participants in both treatments, and cognitive change unsurprisingly discussed more by those receiving CBT. Both therapies were considered to have a positive impact on symptoms of depression and other areas of life including feelings about themselves, self-care, work and relationships. Barriers to therapy included work, family life and emotional challenges. A subset (n=2) of BA participants commented that therapy felt too simple, and MHWs could be perceived as inexperienced. Many participants saw therapy as a learning experience, providing them with tools to take away, with work on relapse prevention essential. CONCLUSIONS: Despite barriers for some participants, BA and CBT were perceived to have many benefits, to have brought about cognitive and behavioural change and to produce improvements in many domains of participants’ lives. To optimise the delivery of BA, inexperienced junior MHWs should be supported through good quality training and ongoing supervision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27473954, 09/12/2011
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5541446
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Open
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55414462017-08-07 Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation Finning, Katie Richards, David A Moore, Lucy Ekers, David McMillan, Dean Farrand, Paul A O’Mahen, Heather A Watkins, Edward R Wright, Kim A Fletcher, Emily Rhodes, Shelley Woodhouse, Rebecca Wray, Faye BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVE: To explore participant views on acceptability, mechanisms of change and impact of behavioural activation (BA) delivered by junior mental health workers (MHWs) versus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by professional psychotherapists. DESIGN: Semistructured qualitative interviews analysed using a framework approach. PARTICIPANTS: 36 participants with major depressive disorder purposively sampled from a randomised controlled trial of BA versus CBT (the COBRA trial). SETTING: Primary care psychological therapies services in Devon, Durham and Leeds, UK. RESULTS: Elements of therapy considered to be beneficial included its length and regularity, the opportunity to learn and not dwelling on the past. Homework was an important, although challenging aspect of treatment. Therapists were perceived as experts who played an important role in treatment. For some participants the most important element of therapy was having someone to talk to, but for others the specific factors associated with BA and CBT were crucial, with behavioural change considered important for participants in both treatments, and cognitive change unsurprisingly discussed more by those receiving CBT. Both therapies were considered to have a positive impact on symptoms of depression and other areas of life including feelings about themselves, self-care, work and relationships. Barriers to therapy included work, family life and emotional challenges. A subset (n=2) of BA participants commented that therapy felt too simple, and MHWs could be perceived as inexperienced. Many participants saw therapy as a learning experience, providing them with tools to take away, with work on relapse prevention essential. CONCLUSIONS: Despite barriers for some participants, BA and CBT were perceived to have many benefits, to have brought about cognitive and behavioural change and to produce improvements in many domains of participants’ lives. To optimise the delivery of BA, inexperienced junior MHWs should be supported through good quality training and ongoing supervision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN27473954, 09/12/2011 BMJ Open 2017-04-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5541446/ /pubmed/28408544 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014161 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Finning, Katie
Richards, David A
Moore, Lucy
Ekers, David
McMillan, Dean
Farrand, Paul A
O’Mahen, Heather A
Watkins, Edward R
Wright, Kim A
Fletcher, Emily
Rhodes, Shelley
Woodhouse, Rebecca
Wray, Faye
Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation
title Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation
title_full Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation
title_fullStr Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation
title_short Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (COBRA): a qualitative process evaluation
title_sort cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behavioural therapy for depression (cobra): a qualitative process evaluation
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541446/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28408544
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014161
work_keys_str_mv AT finningkatie costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT richardsdavida costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT moorelucy costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT ekersdavid costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT mcmillandean costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT farrandpaula costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT omahenheathera costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT watkinsedwardr costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT wrightkima costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT fletcheremily costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT rhodesshelley costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT woodhouserebecca costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation
AT wrayfaye costandoutcomeofbehaviouralactivationversuscognitivebehaviouraltherapyfordepressioncobraaqualitativeprocessevaluation