A pilot study of brief interpersonal psychotherapy for depression among women

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 1.99). 05/2004; 55(4):448-50. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A matched-case-control study compared eight-week outcomes between a group of 16 depressed women who received brief (eight-session) interpersonal psychotherapy and a group of 16 who received a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (sertraline). Women who met DSM-IV criteria for major depression and who had a score above 15 on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were treated openly with brief interpersonal psychotherapy and were matched on key variables with women being treated with sertraline. Linear mixed-effects regression models were used to compare groups on measures of symptoms and functioning during eight weeks of treatment. Both groups improved significantly over time, with large effect sizes. However, contrary to expectations, the women who received psychotherapy improved more quickly than those who received sertraline.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To minimize barriers to care, ameliorate antenatal depression, and prevent postpartum depression in low‐income women, we propose that a culturally relevant version of brief interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT‐B) may be an effective approach. IPT‐B is a modified form of Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT), an efficacious treatment for depression that we have altered to address the needs of women who have difficulty adhering to longer courses of psychotherapy. Culturally relevant additions to IPT‐B include (1) a pre‐treatment engagement strategy consisting of an ethnographic interview accompanied by psychoeducation to engage women in treatment; (2) convenient delivery of IPT‐B in a public care Ob/Gyn clinic where the women receive prenatal services; (3) flexible scheduling of treatment sessions at the clinic or on the phone; and 4) facilitation of access to social services.
    Clinical Social Work Journal 01/2004; 32(3). DOI:10.1023/B:CSOW.0000035111.81205.5b · 0.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Depression during pregnancy has been demonstrated to be predictive of low birthweight, prematurity, and postpartum depression. These adverse outcomes potentially have lasting effects on maternal and child well-being. Socio-economically disadvantaged women are twice as likely as middle-class women to meet diagnostic criteria for antenatal major depression (MDD), but have proven difficult to engage and retain in treatment. Collaborative care treatment models for depression have not been evaluated for racially/ethnically diverse, pregnant women on Medicaid receiving care in a public health system. This paper describes the design, methodology, culturally relevant enhancements, and implementation of a randomized controlled trial of depression care management compared to public health Maternity Support Services(MSS). Methods Pregnant, public health patients, > 18 years with a likely diagnosis of MDD or dysthymia, measured respectively by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9(PHQ-9) or the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview(MINI), were randomized to the intervention or to public health MSS. The primary outcome was reduction in depression severity from baseline during pregnancy to 18-months post-baseline(one-year postpartum). Baseline Results 168 women with likely MDD (96.4%) and/or dysthymia (24.4%) were randomized. Average age was 27.6 years and gestational age was 22.4 weeks; 58.3% racial/ethnic minority; 71.4% unmarried; 22% no high school degree/GED; 65.3% unemployed; 42.1% making < $10,000 annually; 80.4% having recurrent depression; 64.6% PTSD, and 72% an unplanned pregnancy. Conclusions A collaborative care team, including a psychiatrist, psychologist, project manager, and 3 social workers, met weekly, collaborated with the patients’ obstetrics providers, and monitored depression severity using an electronic tracking system. Potential sustainability of the intervention within a public health system requires further study.
    Contemporary Clinical Trials 09/2014; 39(1). DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2014.07.001 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    04/2014; 6(4):438-446. DOI:10.5455/cap.20140115123942