Cognitive Vulnerabilities as Prognostic Predictors of Acute and Follow-up Outcomes in Seasonal Affective Disorder Treatment with Light Therapy or Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.
Cognitive Vulnerabilities as Prognostic Predictors of Acute and Follow-up Outcomes in Seasonal Affective Disorder Treatment with Light Therapy or Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.
复制标题
DOI:
10.1007/s10608-020-10086-4
复制
发表时间:
2020-06
影响因子:
2.8
通讯作者:
Rohan KJ
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Camuso JA;Rohan KJ
First-line treatments for winter seasonal affective disorder include light therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy; however, it is unclear whether particular patient profiles respond differentially to each treatment type. This study examined baseline patient cognitive and chronobiological vulnerabilities as prognostic and prescriptive predictors of acute and follow-up treatment outcomes. 177 adults with seasonal affective disorder were randomized to 6-weeks of either light therapy or cognitive-behavioral therapy. Participants completed baseline measures of cognitive vulnerabilities (Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale; Ruminative Response Scale; Seasonal Belief Questionnaire) and chronobiological vulnerability (Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire). Depression was assessed at pre- and post-treatment and at follow-ups one and two winters later. Pre-treatment depression severity correlated significantly with each cognitive vulnerability measure, and significantly predicted future depression. After controlling for pre-treatment depression, higher scores on the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire were prognostic of lower depression at treatment endpoint, but no cognitive vulnerability emerged as a prognostic or prescriptive predictor of outcome. Greater morningness was associated with less severe post-treatment depression in both cognitive-behavior therapy and light therapy. No cognitive vulnerability emerged as a prognostic or prescriptive predictor, perhaps because they correlated with pre-treatment depression severity, a robust predictor of outcome. Future research should test alternative cognitive constructs.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
6.6
作者:
Lindsey, Kathryn Tierney;Rohan, Kelly J.;Roecklein, Kathryn A.;Mahon, Jennifer N.
通讯作者:
Mahon, Jennifer N.
影响因子:
2.8
作者:
Arnow, BA;Spangler, D;Burns, DD
通讯作者:
Burns, DD
影响因子:
2.8
作者:
Enggasser, Justin L.;Young, Michael A.
通讯作者:
Young, Michael A.
影响因子:
4.1
作者:
Jarrett, Robin B.;Minhajuddin, Abu;Thase, Michael E.
通讯作者:
Thase, Michael E.
影响因子:
17.7
作者:
Lam, RW;Levitt, AJ;Tam, EM
通讯作者:
Tam, EM