Save
Email
Print
ShareScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2008) — There are few studies comparing the efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) and pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder. A group of finnish investigators conducted a comparative study on the efficacy of STPP versus fluoxetine treatment in patients with major depressive disorder in a primary care setting.
Fifty-one patients with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV) of mild or moderate severity were recruited through occupational health services providing primary health care. Patients were randomized to receive either STPP (1 session/week) or fluoxetine treatment (20-40 mg/day) for 16 weeks. The outcome measures included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS).
At the end of the study, intent-to-treat analyses indicated that both treatments were highly effective in reducing the HDRS (p < 0.0001) and BDI (p < 0.0001) scores, as well as in improving functional ability (SOFAS; p < 0.0001), with no statistically significant differences between the treatments.
Of those 40 subjects who completed the follow-up, 57% in the psychotherapy group and 68% in the fluoxetine group showed full remission (HDRS 7) after 4 months. The Authors concluded that both STPP and pharmacological treatment with fluoxetine are effective in reducing symptoms and in improving functional ability of primary care patients with mild or moderate depression.
Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:
Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, via AlphaGalileo.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.
more 
