The comparability between self-reports and clinician-rated scales for measuring depression following treatment has been a long-standing debate, with studies finding mixed results. While the use of self-reports in psychotherapy trials is very common, it has been widely assumed that these tools pose a validity threat when masking of participants is not possible. We conducted a meta-analysis across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapy for depression to examine if treatment effect estimates obtained via self-reports differ from clinician-rated outcomes.

We identified studies from a living database of psychotherapies for depression (updated to 1 January 2023). We included RCTs measuring depression at post-treatment with both a self-report and a clinician-rated scale. As our main model, we ran a multilevel hierarchical meta-analysis, resulting in a pooled differential effect size (Δg) between self-reports and clinician ratings. Moderators of this difference were explored through multimodel inference analyses.

A total of 91 trials (283 effect sizes) were included. In our main model, we found that self-reports produced smaller effect size estimates compared to clinician-rated instruments (Δg = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.03–0.21). This difference was very similar when only including trials with masked clinicians (Δg = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.00–0.20). However, it was more pronounced for unmasked clinical ratings (Δg = 0.20; 95% CI: −0.03 to 0.43) and when trials targeted specific population groups (e.g., perinatal depression) (Δg = 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08–0.32). Effect sizes between self-reports and clinicians were identical in trials targeting general adults (Δg = 0.00; 95% CI: −0.14 to 0.14).

Self-report instruments did not overestimate the effects of psychotherapy for depression and were generally more conservative than clinician assessments. Patients’ perception of improvement should not be considered less valid by default, despite the inherent challenge of masking in psychotherapy.

Neuropsychological evidence suggests that dissociation might disturb emotional learning, which is a fundamental mechanism of psychotherapy. However, a recent meta-analysis on the impact of dissociation on treatment outcomes in psychotherapy trials for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) reported inconsistent results and concluded that further high-quality clinical trials are needed to test whether dissociation affects the efficacy of psychotherapies. We had two main aims: First, to test whether the efficacy of two evidence-based psychotherapies for individuals with trauma-related PTSD is affected by the level of pretreatment dissociation. Second, we investigated whether a significant reduction in dissociation at an early stage of treatment is beneficial for subsequent efficacy.

The potential impact of dissociation on efficacy was studied in 193 women with PTSD related to childhood abuse who were randomized to dialectical behavior therapy for PTSD (DBT-PTSD) or cognitive processing therapy (CPT). Efficacy was operationalized as a change in the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). Dissociation was assessed with the Dissociation Tension Scale (DSS). The analyses accounted for major confounders (in particular initial PTSD severity).

Two main findings emerged from this study. First, baseline dissociation was a negative predictor for treatment efficacy. Second, a significant drop in dissociation at the initial stages of treatment was beneficial for subsequent efficacy.

Dissociation likely reduces the efficacy of trauma-focused therapies. Accordingly, successful reduction of dissociation at an early stage of treatment assists the efficacy of trauma-focused psychotherapies.

Although individuals with lower socio-economic position (SEP) have a higher prevalence of mental health problems than others, there is no conclusive evidence on whether mental healthcare (MHC) is provided equitably. We investigated inequalities in MHC use among adults in Stockholm County (Sweden), and whether inequalities were moderated by self-reported psychological distress.

MHC use was examined in 31,433 individuals aged 18–64 years over a 6-month follow-up period, after responding to the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) in 2014 or the Kessler Six (K6) in 2021. Information on their MHC use and SEP indicators, education, and household income, were sourced from administrative registries. Logistic and negative binomial regression analyses were used to estimate inequalities in gained MHC access and frequency of outpatient visits, with psychological distress as a moderating variable.

Individuals with lower education or income levels were more likely to gain access to MHC than those with high SEP, irrespective of distress levels. Education-related differences in gained MHC access diminished with increasing distress, from a 74% higher likelihood when reporting no distress (odds ratio, OR = 1.74 [95% confidence interval, 95% CI: 1.43–2.12]) to 30% when reporting severe distress (OR = 1.30 [0.98–1.72]). Comparable results were found for secondary care but not primary care i.e., lower education predicted reduced access to primary care in moderate-to-severe distress groups (e.g., OR = 0.63 [0.45–0.90]), and for physical but not digital services. Income-related differences in gained MHC access remained stable or increased with distress, especially for secondary care and physical services.

Among MHC users, we found marginal socio-economic differences in the frequency of outpatient visits, and these differences decreased with increasing distress. Yet, having only primary education with severe distress was associated with fewer outpatient visits compared with having post-secondary education (rate ratio, RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.67–1.00). These inequities were especially evident among women and for visits to psychologists, counsellors, or psychotherapists.

Although lower-income groups used services more than others, they still had higher odds of not using services when reporting distress (i.e., those not in contact with services despite scoring ≥3 on the GHQ-12 or ≥8 on the K6; OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.15–1.40).

Overall, individuals with lower education and income used MHC services more than their counterparts with higher socio-economic status; however, low-educated individuals faced inequities in primary care and underutilized non-physician services such as visits to psychologists.

Executive dysfunction, including working memory deficits, is prominent in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and can impede treatment effectiveness. Intervention approaches that target executive dysfunction alongside standard PTSD treatments could boost clinical response. The current study reports secondary analyses from a randomized controlled trial testing combined PTSD treatment with a computerized training program to improve executive dysfunction. We assessed if pre-treatment neurocognitive substrates of executive functioning predicted clinical response to this novel intervention.

Treatment-seeking veterans with PTSD (N = 60) completed a working memory task during functional magnetic resonance imaging prior to being randomized to six weeks of computerized executive function training (five 30-minute sessions each week) plus twelve 50-minute sessions of cognitive processing therapy (CEFT + CPT) or placebo training plus CPT (PT + CPT). Using linear mixed effects models, we examined the extent to which the neurocognitive substrates of executive functioning predicted PTSD treatment response.

Results indicated that veterans with greater activation of working memory regions (e.g. lateral prefrontal and cingulate cortex) had better PTSD symptom improvement trajectories in CEFT + CPT v. PT + CPT. Those with less neural activation during working memory showed similar trajectories of PTSD symptom change regardless of treatment condition.

Greater activity of frontal regions implicated in working memory may serve as a biomarker of response to a novel treatment in veterans with PTSD. Individuals with greater regional responsiveness benefited more from treatment that targeted cognitive dysfunction than treatment that did not include active cognitive training. Clinically, findings could inform our understanding of treatment mechanisms and may contribute to better personalization of treatment.

To ascertain whether psychotherapies combined with medication are more efficacious than those without medication and determine which combinations yield the best results.

We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing behavioural activation (BA), psychoanalytic/psychodynamic psychotherapy (DYN), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), individual face-to-face cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT (ftf)), group cognitive behavioural therapy (gCBT), and computerised or internet cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) with each other, or with treatment-as-usual (TAU) and wait list control (WLC) among adults formally diagnosed with depression. The psychotherapy arms were categorised as either psychotherapy alone or psychotherapy combined with medication (+ p). Treatment efficacy was assessed based on depression severity. We used a random-effects model to conduct a pairwise meta-analysis.

A total of 100 RCTs with 9,873 participants were included. The most common treatment was CBT (ftf) alone. All treatment arms were compared with TAU. Most psychotherapies combined with medication were superior to psychotherapy alone. In the subgroup analyses according to the baseline severity of depression, most psychotherapies combined with medication were more effective than psychotherapy alone in moderate-to-severe depression, whereas in mild depression, such differences were not observed. Among psychotherapies with medication, gCBT + p was significantly more effective than TAU and other psychotherapies in both the main and subgroup analyses.

The efficacy of depression treatment varied depending on the severity of the depressive condition. Notably, gCBT + p was identified as the most effective approach for treating adult depression.