线上结构式团体认知行为治疗对轻症抑郁患者的有效性和可行性探索

目的探讨线上结构式团体认知行为治疗(internet-based structured group cognitive behavior therapy,I-GCBT)对轻症抑郁患者的有效性和可行性。方法使用SPSS20.0软件生成随机表,将96例轻症抑郁患者分配到线上视频团体干预组(线上组,n=64)与面对面干预组(线下组,n=32),使用HAMD17、HAMA、功能大体评定量表(Global Assessment of Functioning Scale,GAF)以及抑郁症状快速检查-自我报告评分16项(16 Items Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report,QIDS-SR16)分别在基线、4周末、8周末和12周末评估患者抑郁、焦虑及整体功能水平。采用重复测量方差分析比较两组治疗效果差异,采用卡方检验比较两组脱落率、治愈率、治疗接受度差异。结果(1)2组患者基线HAMA评分差异有统计学意义(t=-2.08,P=0.04),其他基线数据差异无统计学意义。(2)对患者在组别和时间的交互作用分析显示,HAMD17、HAMA和QIDS-SR16的时间与组别交互作用均不显著(F=0.69,P>0.05;F=0.95,P>0.05;F=0.64,P>0.05),GAF的时间与组别交互作用显著(F=4.09,P<0.01),2组患者在各量表上时间主效应均显著(HAMD17:F=32.81,P<0.01;HAMA:F=20.86,P<0.01;GAF:F=105.98;P<0.01;QIDS-SR16:F=25.27,P<0.01)。12周末临床治愈率达62%(43/69),线上组57%(25/44),线下组72%(18/25),差异无统计学意义(χ^2=1.57,P=0.21)。(3)治疗期间总体脱落率为26%(21/81),线上组29%(15/51),线下组20%(6/30),2组比较差异无统计学意义(χ^2=0.87,P=0.35),患者对方案的接受程度达97%(58/60),线上组97%(35/36),线下组96%(23/24),2组比较差异无统计学意义(χ^2=0.09,P=0.78)。结论线上结构式团体认知行为治疗对轻症抑郁患者的疗效与面对面干预组相当,患者依从性较好。

A pilot-study to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of internet-based structured group cognitive behavior therapy in patients with mild depressive disorder

Objective To explore the effectiveness and feasibility of internet-based structured group cognitive behavior therapy(I-GCBT)in patients with mild depressive disorder.Methods In this randomized controlled trial,based on a random number table which was generated from spss20.0,96 patients with mild depressive disorder were randomized to I-GCBT(n=64)and face-to-face group cognitive behavior therapy(GCBT,n=32).I-GCBT and GCBT patients were assessed by HAMD17,HAMA,Global Assessment of Functioning Scale,GAF and 16 Items Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report,QIDS-SR16 at baseline,4th week,8th week and 12th week.The differences between I-GCBT and GCBT were analyzed by repetitive measure analysis of variance and chi-square test.Results(1)There was no significant difference between I-GCBT and GCBT on demographics,duration of past depression history,baseline of HAMD17,GAF and QIDS-SR16,but a significantly higher HAMA seen in GCBT(t=-2.08,P=0.04).(2)The interaction of times and groups was significant in GAF(F=4.09,P<0.01)but not in HAMD17,HAMA and QIDS-SR16(F=0.69,P>0.05;F=0.95,P>0.05;F=0.64,P>0.05).In all measurement scales,Time main effects were significant(HAMD17:F=32.81,P<0.01;HAMA:F=20.86,P<0.01;GAF:F=105.98,P<0.01;QIDS-SR16:F=25.27,P<0.01).The symptoms remission rate of the overall patients was 62%(43/69)after 12 weeks treatment,lower in I-GCBT(57%,25/44)and higher in GCBT(72%,18/25).There was no significant difference between two groups(χ^2=1.57,P=0.21).(3)The overall dropout rate was 26%during the 12-weeks treatment specifically 29%(15/51)in I-GCBT and 20%(6/30)in GCBT without significant difference in-between(χ^2=0.87,P=0.35).97%(58/60)patients rated the treatment as acceptable(I-GCBT:97%(35/36),GCBT:96%(23/24)),and the difference of acceptability between two groups was not significant(χ^2=0.09,P=0.78).Conclusion The effectiveness and feasibility of I-GCBT are comparable to GCBT for mild depressive disorder.And the treatment adherence of I-GCBT seems good.