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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |