***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND Re source activation is considered to be a central mechanism in psychotherapeutic change . However , it is widely unknown whether a special focus on re source activation is associated with higher efficacy in cognitive behavioural therapy . METHOD 52 patients with unipolar depression took part in a r and omized controlled study comparing cognitive behavioural therapy plus re source activation ( RFCBT ) with cognitive behavioural therapy ( CBT ) alone . RESULTS Overall , treatment effects were comparable to published research . In both treatment groups patients equally improved on cognitive , emotional and interpersonal outcome measures . CONCLUSIONS A combined treatment approach of cognitive behavioural therapy and re source activation was shown to be an effective treatment of unipolar depression . Yet , compared to a st and ard CBT-treatment an additional focus on re source was not associated with higher efficacy Tests the efficacy of social problem-solving therapy for unipolar depression and examines the relative contribution of training in the problem-orientation component of the overall model . This process involves various beliefs , assumptions , appraisal s , and expectations concerning life 's problems and one 's problem-solving ability . It is conceptually distinct from the remaining four problem-solving components that are specific goal -directed tasks . A dismantling research design , involving 39 depressed Ss , provides findings that indicate  problem-solving  to be an effective cognitive-behavioral treatment approach for depression , thereby extending previous research . Moreover , the results underscore the importance of including problem-orientation training The purpose of this study was to provide an experimental test of the theory of change put forth by A. T. Beck , A. J. Rush , B. F. Shaw , and G. Emery ( 1979 ) to explain the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy ( CT ) for depression . The comparison involved r and omly assigning 150 out patients with major depression to a treatment focused exclusively on the  behavioral activation ( BA ) component of CT  , a treatment that included both BA and the teaching of skills to modify automatic thoughts ( AT ) , but excluding the components of CT focused on core schema , or the full CT treatment . Four experienced cognitive therapists conducted all treatments . Despite excellent adherence to treatment protocol s by the therapists , a clear bias favoring CT , and the competent performance of CT , there was no evidence that the complete treatment produced better outcomes , at either the termination of acute treatment or the 6-month follow-up , than either component treatment . Furthermore , both BA and AT treatments were just as effective as CT at altering negative thinking as well as dysfunctional attributional styles . Finally , attributional style was highly predictive of both short- and long-term outcomes in the BA condition , but not in the CT condition Background : Deficits in emotion regulation skills are possible factors maintaining major depressive disorder ( MDD ) . Therefore , the aim of the study was to test whether integrating a systematic emotion regulation training ( ERT ) enhances the efficacy of routine inpatient cognitive behavioral therapy ( CBT ) for MDD . Methods : In a prospect i ve r and omized controlled trial , 432 in patients meeting criteria for MDD were assigned to receive either routine CBT or CBT enriched with an intense emotion regulation skills training ( CBT-ERT ) . Results : Participants in the CBT-ERT condition demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in depression ( response rates - CBT : 75.5 % , CBT-ERT : 84.9 % ; remission rates - CBT : 51.1 % , CBT-ERT : 65.1 % ) . Moreover , CBT-ERT participants demonstrated a significantly greater reduction of negative affect , as well as a greater increase of well-being and emotion regulation skills particularly relevant for mental health . Conclusions : Integrating strategies that target emotion regulation skills improves the efficacy of CBT for MDD Abstract To investigate the effectiveness of cognitive hypnotherapy ( CH ) , hypnosis combined with cognitive-behavioral therapy ( CBT ) , on depression , 84 depressives were r and omly assigned to 16 weeks of treatment of either CH or CBT alone . At the end of treatment , patients from both groups significantly improved compared to baseline scores . However , the CH group produced significantly larger changes in Beck Depression Inventory , Beck Anxiety Inventory , and Beck Hopelessness Scale . Effect size calculations showed that the CH group produced 6 % , 5 % , and 8 % greater reduction in depression , anxiety , and hopelessness , respectively , over and above the CBT group . The effect size was maintained at 6-month and 12-month follow-ups . This study represents the first controlled comparison of hypnotherapy with a well-established psychotherapy for depression , meeting the APA criteria for a “ probably efficacious ” treatment for depression Flaws in the design , conduct , analysis , and reporting of r and omised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated . The Cochrane Collaboration ’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more OBJECTIVE Depression is a common comorbidity of diabetes , undesirably affecting patients ’ physical and mental functioning . Psychological interventions are effective treatments for depression in the general population as well as in patients with a chronic disease . The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of individual mindfulness-based cognitive therapy ( MBCT ) and individual cognitive behavior therapy ( CBT ) in comparison with a waiting-list control condition for treating depressive symptoms in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this r and omized controlled trial , 94 out patients with diabetes and comorbid depressive symptoms ( i.e. , Beck Depression Inventory-II [ BDI-II ] ≥14 ) were r and omized to MBCT ( n = 31 ) , CBT ( n = 32 ) , or waiting list ( n = 31 ) . All participants completed written question naires and interviews at pre- and postmeasurement ( 3 months later ) . Primary outcome measure was severity of depressive symptoms ( BDI-II and Toronto Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ) . Anxiety ( Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 ) , well-being ( Well-Being Index ) , diabetes-related distress ( Problem Areas In Diabetes ) , and HbA1c levels were assessed as secondary outcomes . RESULTS Results showed that participants receiving MBCT and CBT reported significantly greater reductions in depressive symptoms compared with patients in the waiting-list control condition ( respectively , P = 0.004 and P < 0.001 ; d = 0.80 and 1.00 ; clinical ly relevant improvement 26 % and 29 % vs. 4 % ) . Both interventions also had significant positive effects on anxiety , well-being , and diabetes-related distress . No significant effect was found on HbA1c values . CONCLUSIONS Both individual MBCT and CBT are effective in improving a range of psychological symptoms in individuals with type 1 and type 2 diabetes Background In this study Mindfulness and CBT were combined to investigate the enhance of psychotropic work . Both therapies have integrated acceptance-based mindfulness approaches with change-based cognitive behavioral therapies to create efficacious treatments . That is , introduce use of MBCT in active phase of treatment and chronic depression . Objectives This study was done to evaluate efficacy of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy ( MBCT ) and traditional Cognitive Behavior Therapy ( CBT ) with Treatments as usual ( TAU ) to reduce psychiatric symptoms in a sample of patients with Major Depressive Disorder ( MDD ) . Material s and Methods 90 patients who were referred to clinics of university of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences and Tehran University Counseling Centre and met DSM-IV criteria for MDD were selected . They were r and omly assigned to MBCT ( n = 30 ) , CBT ( n = 30 ) , or TAU ( n = 30 ) . They were aged between 18 and 45 years ( M = 28 , SD = 8) , with an average of two previous depression episodes . They were interviewed through the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and self-report by Brief Symptom Inventory , pre and post treatment . Patients in MBCT and CBT group received the treatment , while TAU group continued therapy ( anti-depressant ) . Results The results indicated that MBCT and CBT groups have significant efficacy on reduction of MDD symptoms . Conclusions MBCT appears to be as effective as CBT in the treatment of current depression BACKGROUND Psychotherapeutic treatment is underused in primary care , where even short-term psychotherapy can be perceived as too lengthy and labour-intensive . We tested here for the first time the preliminary efficacy of seven sessions of interpersonal counselling ( IPC ) by comparison with sixteen sessions of interpersonal psychotherapy ( IPT ) in regular clinical setting s. METHODS Patients seeking treatment for the first time who met the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive disorder ( MDD , mild/moderate ) were r and omized to either IPC ( n=20 ) or IPT ( n=20 ) . The efficacy of the treatments was assessed using the 34-item Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation ( CORE-OM ) scale and the Beck Depression Inventory ( BDI ) scale . RESULTS 90 % of the patients completed all the treatment sessions . IPC delivered by psychiatric nurses in primary care proved equally as effective as IPT delivered by psychotherapists/psychologists in secondary care . The pre-treatment to 12-month follow-up within-group effect sizes were large : 1.52 ( CORE-OM ) and 1.41 ( BDI ) in the IPC group and 1.58 ( CORE-OM ) and 1.40 ( BDI ) in the IPT group . At the 12-month follow-up 59 % of the patients in the IPC group and 63 % in the IPT group were classified as recovered on the CORE-OM scale , with corresponding remission rates of 61 % for both groups on the BDI scale . LIMITATIONS The small sample size limited the power to detect differences between the groups and the naturalistic setting s may have confounded the results . CONCLUSIONS This clinical trial suggests that IPC is an appropriate and even sufficient first-phase intervention for h and ling previously untreated mild to moderate depression in primary health care This study evaluated a parent problem-solving ( PPS ) intervention design ed to augment the effects of evidence -based therapy for children referred to treatment for aggressive and antisocial behavior . All children ( N = 127 , ages 6 - 14 years ) and their families received problem-solving skills training ( PSST ) , and parents received parent management training ( PMT ) . Families were r and omly assigned to receive or not to receive an additional component ( PPS ) that addressed parental stress over the course of treatment . Children improved with treatment ; the PPS intervention  enhanced therapeutic change for children and parents and reduced the barriers that parents experienced during treatment . The implication s of the findings for improving evidence -based treatment as well as the limitations of adding components to treatment are detailed BACKGROUND R and omized trials can show whether a treatment effect is statistically significant and can describe the size of the effect . There are , however , no vali date d methods available for establishing the clinical relevance of these outcomes . Recently , it was proposed that a st and ardized mean difference ( SMD ) of 0.50 be used as cutoff for clinical relevance in the treatment of depression . METHODS We explore what the effect size means and why the size of an effect has little bearing on its clinical relevance . We will also examine how the " minimally important difference , " as seen from the patient perspective , may be helpful in deciding where the cutoff for clinical relevance should be placed for a given condition . RESULTS Effect sizes in itself can not give an indication of the clinical relevance of an intervention because the outcome itself determines the clinical relevance and not only the size of the effects . The " minimal important difference " ( MID ) could be used as a starting point for pinpointing the cutoff for clinical relevance . A first , rough attempt to implement this approach for depression result ed in a tentative clinical relevance cutoff of SMD = 0.24 . Using this cutoff , psychotherapy , pharmacotherapy , and combined treatment have effect sizes above this cutoff . DISCUSSION Statistical outcomes can not be equated with clinical relevance . The " MID " may be used for pinpointing the cutoff for clinical relevance , but more work in this area is needed 
    Output:
    
The currently available component studies do not have the statistical power nor the quality to draw any meaningful conclusion about key ingredients of psychotherapies for adult depression