Clinical trial NCT05833087: Schema Therapy for Patients With Chronic Treatment Resistant Depression
Official title: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Schema Therapy for Patients With Chronic Treatment Resistant Depression
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Treatment Resistant Depression
Chronic Depression
Keywords: treatment resistant depression
schema therapy
psychotherapy
difficult-to-treat depression
chronic depression
clinical trial
randomized controlled trial
Lead sponsor: Region of Southern Denmark
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: TrygFonden, Denmark
name: Mental Health Services in the Capital Region, Denmark
First posted: 2023-04-27
Enrollment: 129
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 65
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: The study is a multi-center, two-arm, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled superiority study.
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: The goal of this clinical study is to test a particular form of psychotherapy, called schema therapy, for people with difficult-to-treat depression (when depression is very lengthy or difficult to cure with antidepressive medication). Researchers will compare the group of participants receiving schema therapy to a group receiving standard psychotherapeutic treatment to see if schema therapy is more effective on depression symptoms and other important issues for the participant.

The main question the study aims to answer is:

- Can schema therapy be a more effective treatment for difficult-to-treat depression than other forms of psychotherapy offered in psychiatry today?

People who have difficult-to-treat depression are a special group of patients who are more strained in a wide range of areas of life than other people with depression. They also more often have childhood trauma, as well as simultaneous personality disorder or personality traits that brings challenges in everyday life. Currently we can not offer a sufficiently effective psychiatric treatment for this group of people.

Schema therapy was developed to help patients who do not have sufficient effect of the usual psychotherapeutic treatments. It also addresses personality disorders or problematic traits and childhood trauma directly in the therapy.

The project will include 129 participants in total, of which half will receive schema therapy.

Treatment is provided at four psychiatric centers at both the Southern and the Capital Region of Denmark.

Participants receiving schema therapy will be given 30 sessions of weekly therapy, as well as the opportunity for the rest of the standard care package in the Danish secondary mental health system, that is, treatment with psychopharmacological medicine and meetings with next-to-kin and other parts of the participant's support system.

Participants receiving the standard treatment will receive 6-16 sessions of individual or group therapy with a range of other psychotherapies that are not schema therapy, as well as the other parts of the standard care package as listed above.

If schema therapy proves to be more effective for treatment of difficult-to-treat depression than the treatment offered today, it may give rise to more extended use of schema therapy in and outside psychiatry. This means that the toolbox for the treatment of difficult-to-treat depression is expanded with a new specialized and effective psychotherapeutic tool.

Detailed description: Aims of study:

The central aim of this study is to investigate whether Schema Therapy (ST) of longer duration (up to 30 sessions) outperforms the current treatment as usual (TAU) for patients with chronic and treatment resistant depression (CTRD) on depression outcomes at 12 months after baseline measurements, as well as at 6 and 24 months time points after baseline. It is hypothesized that the treatment effect in ST is mediated by changes in the psychological phenomenons called modes, namely Healthy Adult Mode and Vulnerable Child Mode, and that treatment effect is moderated by childhood adversity.

A second aim is to expand the understanding of what constitutes a successful therapy by investigating relevant secondary outcomes at the same time points. When dealing with chronic and/or treatment resistant illnesses, other success criteria such as level of functioning, personal recovery, or a completely different, patient-generated outcome, might be more obtainable than improvements in illness symptoms alone.

The final aim for the study is to investigate and define the population of patients with CTRD. It will be attempted to refine the Maudsley Staging Model for CTRD by including (failed) psychotherapy trials. As a part of this, it will be investigated whether patients with Treatment Resistant Depression (TRD) and Chronic Depression (CD), respectively, can be adequately understood as exhibiting similar characteristics in symptoms and response to treatments.

Background for study:

CTRD-patients seem to differ substantially from non-CTRD patients in numerous respects: factors such as adverse events in childhood, higher prevalence of comorbid personality disorders as well as inhibiting personality features, interpersonal behavior and cognitive styles.

With this knowledge, ST may be a particularly promising treatment for CTRD, as it targets both childhood adversity and particular inhibiting personality features. Going to the 'root of problems', ST can potentially have a more enduring effect on the presenting symptoms. Also, CTRD responds differently to psychotherapy than non-CTRD with smaller effects and with fewer 'sudden gains' compared to non-chronic depression. Longer duration of treatment also seems to be necessary; a meta-analysis estimated a minimum of 18 sessions necessary to produce convincing results. It is thus likely that a longer duration of ST therapy, as opposed to the shorter TAU, will still be cost-effective due to greater and/or longer-lasting effects.

Clinical practice varies widely in Denmark and internationally, and the extent to which these patients are correctly diagnosed, classified, registered and referred to specialized, prolonged CTRD treatment is unknown and probably not reflecting the true prevalence of CTRD-patients. To some extent, staging models encompass the differential features of CTRD, but even the most elaborate and validated, the Maudsley Staging Model (MSM) does not include treatment with psychotherapy as a variable. The addition of former failed psychotherapy trials could possibly improve the predictive value on factors such as dropout, short- and long-term effect of psychotherapy, and effect of differential types of psychotherapy (long duration ST vs TAU). This could provide essential information for treatment selection as well as short- and even long-term prognosis.

Study design:

This is a multi-center, two-arm, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. Participants will be allocated 1 : 1 to either 30 sessions of ST or to treatment as usual (TAU) for treating CTRD. Both treatment conditions will include administration of medical treatment as appropriate, following the usual treatment regimes in Danish secondary mental health services. Data will be collected via interview and self-report at baseline prior to randomization, and again at 6, 12 and 24 months after baseline measurements.

The treatment will take place at four psychiatric out-patient clinics in the Southern (Odense) and Capital (Copenhagen/Nørrebro, Frederiksberg, Ballerup) regions of Denmark.

Schema therapists:

The ST-therapists will be recruited on the basis of willingness to and availability for training. 21 therapists will be trained in order to ensure enough available therapists in the case of therapist drop-out from the study. As the risk for dropout of therapists has proven to be high, privately practicing psychologists with schema therapy and prior psychiatric experience will be employed to provide treatment as needed on the sites.

All therapists should have degrees within psychology, medicine, physiotherapy, nursing, or social work as well as prior psychotherapeutic experience. After training in ST, the therapists' competency and adherence to the treatment protocol will be evaluated, and therapists performing under the required level of competency will not be providing treatment in the study. This is done by submission of one video recorded therapy session by each therapist with a current patient at the treatment site. This patient is not part of the study intervention group, and no further data is collected on the patient. While the patient in the video will receive some sort of schema therapeutic intervention, this is thought to be within the scope of the treatment that the patient would have otherwise received in treatment at the site. The patient will be asked at the previous therapy session whether they would be willing to be video recorded at the next session for the purpose of the study. A separate information sheet will be distributed for this purpose right before the initiation of recording.

Throughout the study, therapists will receive 1,5 hours of monthly supervision in groups of up to 10 therapists. A selection of the therapy sessions for each therapist will be video-recorded and evaluated for adherence by research assistants A (after the conclusion of intake assessments) and B.

Concomitant treatment:

Psychopharmacological treatment and changes in medicine prescriptions are permitted by the psychiatrists working at the treatment sites, since this is a part of the regular depression treatment in the Danish secondary psychiatric sector. Medication use will be monitored via the electronic journal system. Concomitant psychopharmacological or psychotherapeutic treatment outside of the treatment sites is discouraged, but participants will still be included in the intent-to-treat-analyses. Concomitant treatment will be registered as part of study data.

Sample size:

Sample size planning is based on previous studies that used the short form of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D6) as their primary or secondary outcome. In previous studies, the standard deviation of HAM-D6 scores at end-of-treatment was around 3.5 within the intervention arms . A difference of 2 units on the HAM-D6 (i.e., d=0.57) is considered clinically relevant; this is the difference we would not like to miss in the comparison of the group averages at the 12 month measurement point. On the HAM-D6 scale (range 0...22), 2 units correspond to an improvement on two of the six items (depressed mood, guilt feelings, work and interest, psychomotor retardation, psychic anxiety, general somatic symptoms). At the conventional significance level of α=0.05 two-tailed, a total of N=100 participants need to be randomized to detect the relevant group difference with 80% power.

The number of randomized participants should be increased to account for clustering and dropout. The therapy is administered individually (not in groups); therefore, cluster effects are expected to be low (intra-cluster correlation = 0.01), but not zero because several participants are treated by the same therapist. Dropout is assumed to be substantial in this patient population and should be compensated in the sample size calculation even if the main analysis uses imputation of missing data.

With a cluster size of around 5 participants per therapist, and accounting for a dropout of approximately 20%, the total sample size should be increased to a total of 129 participants, randomized 1:1 in each intervention arm.

Recruitment, participant information and consent:

When referred to psychiatric treatment in the Mental Health Services, Capital and Southern Regions of Denmark, all new patients routinely go through a treatment intake interview. At this interview, the site's clinicians will also evaluate the possible participants' eligibility for the study.

Interested individuals are then contacted by the research team who will give further verbal and written information about the study by telephone and e-mail. If the participant is still interested and eligible, a minimum of 24 hours is given before the baseline interview to consider whether they would like to participate or not. The baseline assessment interview takes place in a quiet setting, either with physical presence in an office at a research or treatment site, or if preferred by the participant, online on a secure platform. Written informed consent is collected. The participants will be informed that participation is voluntary and that withdrawal from the study is possible at any time without implications for the treatment to which they were referred.

The participants do not receive any monetary or other reimbursements, gifts or rewards for their participation.

Assignment to interventions, randomization and concealment of treatment allocation:

Following screening and baseline assessment, participants will be randomized to either ST or TAU with a 1:1 allocation. The randomization was stratified by depression severity (moderate or severe; HAM-D6) and childhood maltreatment (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), dichotomized) at baseline for the first 14 included patients; however, this was changed to stratification for site for the remainder of included patients. The data management system Redcap (Research Electronic Data Capture), a secure web application for building and managing online surveys and databases, will execute randomization.

Adequate allocation concealment is secured by not performing the randomization until after baseline assessment and recruitment into the trial.

After randomization, the baseline assessor (Assistant A) will inform the relevant clinic about the treatment allocation. Thus, assistant A will be the only researcher knowledgeable about the results of randomization and will therefore not be involved in the outcome or follow-up assessments.

Information from the electronic patient journals:

After a participant has agreed to participate in the study, written consent will be obtained from the participant for the research team to be able to access the participant's electronic patient journals in order to obtain information about given psychotherapeutic, psychopharmacological or other psychiatric treatment before or during the trial. This information is used to be able to evaluate the participant's degree of treatment resistance and the extent of given treatment as part of the scientific evaluation in relation to the study's purpose, and further to be able to control and monitor for quality and adherence to treatment. Also, consent will be collected about being contacted in the case of treatment dropout in order to obtain information about the cause of the dropout.

Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up:

As a natural part of psychotherapeutic treatment, study participants who utter doubt as to whether to stay in treatment will be invited by their therapist to a collaborative and motivational inquiry about their doubts. Study participants who are absent from therapy sessions without notice will be contacted for a similar inquiry.

At the 6-, 12-, and 24-month time points after baseline measurements, the participants will be contacted by phone, text message and/or secure e-mail and asked to participate in a clinical assessment, where they will also fill out the self-report measures. If necessary, the assessment can take place in the participant's own home.

Statistical analyses:

The primary analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle, with conservative imputation of missing outcomes. The primary outcome (HAMD-6) is treated as an interval-scaled, normally distributed variable. The efficacy of the therapies will be compared using a multilevel linear regression with therapy arm (levels Schema, TAU) as the main effect of interest, center and baseline depression symptom level as covariates, and therapist as a random factor. Missing outcomes for participants who dropped out of treatment will be multiply imputed based on the available data from participants that discontinued therapy, but participated in follow-up assessments for the study ("retrieved dropouts"). For participants who completed therapy but did not participate in follow-up assessments, outcomes will be multiply imputed based on the study completers with available data. A statistical analysis plan will be finalized before breaking the blind, this plan will specify the details of the imputation model.

The therapy effect will be presented as the covariate-adjusted difference between the average outcomes in two therapy arms, along with its 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses will be carried out for the subset of per-protocol participants with available outcome data. Secondary outcomes will be analyzed in a similar way, using generalized linear models depending on the type of the outcome (e.g., multilevel logistic regression for the response rates). Further sensitivity analyses will be carried out using non-linear regression models (e.g., negative binomial regression) to rule out bias due to ceiling or floor effects in the outcome.

Exploratory analyses:

Participants with childhood maltreatment and corresponding maladaptive schema could be hypothesized to benefit more from ST than participants with less severe experiences in childhood. This will be analyzed by adding the interaction of maltreatment (CTQ, dichotomized) × therapy to the statistical model of the primary analysis, and by estimating stratum specific therapy effects in participants with and without maltreatment experiences.

Potential usefulness of the altered MSM-staging model will be evaluated by adding the MSM score as a predictor to the primary analysis and testing the increase in explained variance of the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes and process variables (dropout, short- and long term follow-up data).

As mentioned, ST is theorized to work through promoting the Healthy Adult Mode and Vulnerable Child Mode, measured by the SMI-HA and SMI-VC. In the case of a detected difference between treatments, an exploratory mediation analysis will be performed to investigate the relative contribution of changes in SMI-HA and SMI-VC to the overall therapeutic outcome.

Socioeconomic analysis:

Analyses regarding the costs and effect of the longer ST intervention relative to socioeconomic aspects and interests will be performed using the Euro-QOL-5D as outcome measure.

Harms and adverse event:

The election of ST was made under the hypothesis that ST will be of particular benefit to CRTD-patients. The treatment itself is not expected to have serious side effects, however, psychotherapy as well as the intake interview, and/or the filling out of questionnaires can induce temporary emotional stress when uncovering or with dense emotional issues. If deterioration in the participant's mental health occurs during the course of the study, this will be naturally addressed with the participant's therapist. If it happens momentarily in the intake session, the research assistants, who will also have a Master's degree in Psychology, will be handling this appropriately after training and under supervision by the project manager, an authorized psychologist.

Adverse events such as suicidal attempts, admittance to a psychiatric ward, or substantial self-harm are already routinely reported and addressed systematically with appropriate measures in the psychiatric secondary care system. Such events will therefore be recorded as part of the study. Finally, the Negative Effects Questionnaire as a part of the secondary outcomes will address adverse events more broadly to qualify which events are potential harms of treatment and which are unrelated to treatment.

Further, as recommended by the European Medicines Agency, subgroup analyses to detect symptom deterioration will be performed, even in the case of no statistically significant difference between treatments. This is to ensure that any subgroup with a differential negative effect of treatment is detected in order to provide contraindications towards a particular treatment for certain participants.

Pilot study:

Prior to the commencement of the trial, a pilot study, N=4, will be performed to evaluate outcome measures' relevance and applicability, the procedure for inclusion of participants, including an evaluation of participant flow, and the therapist training program and implementation across treatment sites. The pilot will inform the large-scale study and allow for smaller adjustments to ensure a smooth inclusion and treatment phase and the following of the time schedule. The participants in the pilot study will all receive TAU after the intake interview.

Data from the participants in the pilot study will not be included in the full-scale data analysis.

Planned publications:

A total of 5 articles are planned for the study; articles 1-3 during the PhD, and articles 4-5 during the post doc-period.

1. Schema therapy for chronic, treatment resistant depression - study protocol of a randomized controlled trial
2. Systematic review of schema therapy for mental disorders - reviewing the current evidence base
3. A randomized controlled superiority study of prolonged schema therapy vs TAU for chronic treatment resistant depression - symptoms, functioning and patient-generated treatment goals
4. Follow-up of a randomized controlled study of schema therapy vs TAU for chronic treatment resistant depression.
5. Chronicity and treatment resistance in patients with depression. Proposition for a predictive staging model including psychotherapeutic treatment.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Participants have at the time of inclusion been referred to treatment for depression as a primary diagnosis in a psychiatric clinic
* Participants should meet the diagnosis of chronic or treatment-resistant depression as follows:

  1. Clinical major depression as measured by the M.I.N.I. diagnostic interview: duration minimum two years OR persistent after = 2 trials of antidepressants from different classes, in an adequate dosage and time period (= 4 weeks) OR moderate treatment resistance as measured on the MSM-scale, score \> 6
  2. Minimum a score of 9 points on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 6 (HAMD-6), corresponding to moderate to severe depression

Exclusion Criteria:

* Alcohol or substance abuse
* Bipolar or psychotic disorder
* Acute suicidal risk
* Mental disability (estimated IQ \< 70)
* Non-Danish speaker
* Known to be pregnant at time of inclusion

Psychiatric comorbidity is not an exclusion criteria, until the comorbid disorder is understood to be the primary psychiatric problem and as such the patient would be treated in a different care package, e.g., for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Primary outcomes:
measure: Change from baseline in depression symptoms on the clinician-rated Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression at 12 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (of schema therapy) at 12 months
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Change from baseline in depression symptoms on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression at 6 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment at usual) at 6 months
measure: Change from baseline in depression symptoms on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression at 24 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to after 24 months
measure: Change from baseline in subjective functional impairment as measured on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) at 6 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment at usual) at 6 months
measure: Change from baseline in subjective functional impairment as measured on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) at 12 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (of schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Change from baseline in subjective functional impairment as measured on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) at 24 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to after 24 months
measure: Change from baseline in psychological well-being as measured on the WHO-5 Well-Being Index at 6 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment at usual) at 6 months
measure: Change from baseline in psychological well-being as measured on the WHO-5 Well-Being Index at 12 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Change from baseline in psychological well-being as measured on the WHO-5 Well-Being Index at 24 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to after 24 months
measure: Change from baseline in personal recovery after mental illness as measured on the INSPIRE-O Brief at 6 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment at usual) at 6 months
measure: Change from baseline in personal recovery after mental illness as measured on the INSPIRE-O Brief at 12 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Change from baseline in personal recovery after mental illness as measured on the INSPIRE-O Brief at 24 months after baseline measurements
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to after 24 months
measure: Change from baseline in reactions to anger as measured on the Dimensions of Anger Reactions - Revised (DAR) at 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment at usual) at 6 months
measure: Change from baseline in reactions to anger as measured on the Dimensions of Anger Reactions - Revised (DAR) at 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Change from baseline in reactions to anger as measured on the Dimensions of Anger Reactions - Revised (DAR) at 24 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to after 24 months
measure: Level of negative effects of treatment as measured on the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ) at 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At end of treatment (Treatment at usual) at 6 months after baseline assessments
measure: Level of negative effects of treatment as measured on the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ) at 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months after baseline assessments
measure: Level of negative effects of treatment as measured on the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ) at 24 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At follow-up 24 months after baseline assessments
measure: Changes in 1-2 patient defined problems as measured on the Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS) at end of treatment for Treatment at usual 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (for Treatment at usual-arm only) at 6 months
measure: Changes in 1-2 patient defined problems as measured on the Psychological Outcome Profiles (PSYCHLOPS) at end of treatment for Schema therapy, 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (for Schema Therapy-arm only) at 12 months
measure: Changes in anger processing as measured on the Metacognitive Anger Processing scale Short Version (MAP) at 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment As Usual) at 6 months
measure: Changes in anger processing as measured on the Metacognitive Anger Processing scale Short Version (MAP) at 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Changes in anger processing as measured on the Metacognitive Anger Processing scale Short Version (MAP) at 24 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At follow-up 24 months after baseline assessments
measure: Changes in repetitive negative thinking as measured on the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) at 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment As Usual) at 6 months
measure: Changes in repetitive negative thinking as measured on the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) at 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Changes in repetitive negative thinking as measured on the Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (PTQ) at 24 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At follow-up 24 months after baseline assessments
measure: Changes in anxiety symptoms as measured on the Symptom Checklist-10 (SCL-10) at 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment As Usual) at 6 months
measure: Changes in anxiety symptoms as measured on the Symptom Checklist-10 (SCL-10) at 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Changes in anxiety symptoms as measured on the Symptom Checklist-10 (SCL-10) at 24 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At follow-up 24 months after baseline assessments
measure: Changes in health-related quality of life as measured on the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) at 6 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment As Usual) at 6 months
measure: Changes in health-related quality of life as measured on the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) at 12 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Changes in health-related quality of life as measured on the Euro-Qol-5D (EQ-5D) at 24 months after baseline assessments
timeFrame: At follow-up 24 months after baseline assessments
measure: Prediction for treatment effect of negative expectancies for change in depression symptoms as measured on the Depression Change Expectancy Scale-pessimistic (DCES-P) items at baseline assessments
timeFrame: At baseline only
measure: Schema modes as mediators of treatment effect after 12 months, as measured on the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 12 months (Schema therapy arm only)
measure: Schema modes as mediators of treatment effect after 6 months, as measured on the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 6 months (both arms)
measure: Schema modes as mediators of treatment effect after 12 months, as measured on the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 12 months (Treatment as Usual-arm only)
measure: Schema modes as mediators of treatment effect after 24 months, as measured on the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 24 months (both arms)
measure: Early maladaptive schemas as measured after 12 months on the Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 12 months (Schema therapy arm only)
measure: Early maladaptive schemas as measured after 6 months on the Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 6 months (both arms)
measure: Early maladaptive schemas as measured after 12 months on the Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 12 months (Treatment As Usual arm only)
measure: Early maladaptive schemas as measured after 24 months on the Young Schema Questionnaire 3 Short Form (YSQ-S3)
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment at 24 months (both arms)
measure: Response to treatment at 6 months after baseline as measured on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment As Usual) at 6 months
measure: Response to treatment at 12 months after baseline as measured on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Response to treatment at 24 months after baseline as measured on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to follow up at 24 months
measure: Remission from depression at 6 months after baseline as measured on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Treatment As Usual) at 6 months
measure: Remission from depression at 12 months after baseline as measured on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to end of treatment (Schema therapy) at 12 months
measure: Remission from depression at 24 months after baseline as measured on the Hamilton-6 Rating Scale for Depression
timeFrame: From baseline measurements to follow up at 24 months
Other outcomes:
measure: Treatments for depression in earlier and current depressive episode as predictors of treatment effect
timeFrame: Collected at baseline only
measure: Childhood adversity, as measured on the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) as predictor of treatment effect
timeFrame: Collected at baseline only
Locations:
city: Ballerup
country: Denmark
facility: Psychotherapeutic Out-patient Clinic, Psychiatric Center Ballerup, Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark
city: Copenhagen
country: Denmark
facility: Psychotherapeutic Out-patient Clinic, Psychiatric Center Copenhagen/Nannasgade, Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark
city: Frederiksberg
country: Denmark
facility: Psychotherapeutic Clinic Frederiksberg, Psychiatric Center Copenhagen, Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark
city: Odense
country: Denmark
facility: Local Psychiatry Odense, Region of Southern Denmark Psychiatry
Study officials:
affiliation: Region of Southern Denmark Psychiatry; University of Southern Denmark
name: Stine B. Moeller, PhD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References:
citation: Licht RW, Qvitzau S, Allerup P, Bech P. Validation of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the Hamilton Depression Scale in patients with major depression; is the total score a valid measure of illness severity? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2005 Feb;111(2):144-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2004.00440.x.
citation: Ostergaard SD, Bech P, Miskowiak KW. Fewer study participants needed to demonstrate superior antidepressant efficacy when using the Hamilton melancholia subscale (HAM-D(6)) as outcome measure. J Affect Disord. 2016 Jan 15;190:842-845. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.047. Epub 2014 Nov 7.
citation: Timmerby N, Andersen JH, Sondergaard S, Ostergaard SD, Bech P. A Systematic Review of the Clinimetric Properties of the 6-Item Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6). Psychother Psychosom. 2017;86(3):141-149. doi: 10.1159/000457131. Epub 2017 May 11.
citation: Trevino K, McClintock SM, McDonald Fischer N, Vora A, Husain MM. Defining treatment-resistant depression: a comprehensive review of the literature. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;26(3):222-32.
citation: Barnhofer T, Brennan K, Crane C, Duggan D, Williams JM. A comparison of vulnerability factors in patients with persistent and remitting lifetime symptom course of depression. J Affect Disord. 2014 Jan;152-154:155-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.09.001. Epub 2013 Sep 20.
citation: Cuijpers P, van Straten A, Schuurmans J, van Oppen P, Hollon SD, Andersson G. Psychotherapy for chronic major depression and dysthymia: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010 Feb;30(1):51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.09.003.
citation: Demyttenaere K, Van Duppen Z. The Impact of (the Concept of) Treatment-Resistant Depression: An Opinion Review. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019 Feb 1;22(2):85-92. doi: 10.1093/ijnp/pyy052.
citation: Fekadu A, Wooderson S, Donaldson C, Markopoulou K, Masterson B, Poon L, Cleare AJ. A multidimensional tool to quantify treatment resistance in depression: the Maudsley staging method. J Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;70(2):177-84. doi: 10.4088/jcp.08m04309. Epub 2009 Jan 27.
citation: Kohler S, Chrysanthou S, Guhn A, Sterzer P. Differences between chronic and nonchronic depression: Systematic review and implications for treatment. Depress Anxiety. 2019 Jan;36(1):18-30. doi: 10.1002/da.22835. Epub 2018 Oct 9.
citation: Lim CR, Barlas J. The effects of Toxic Early Childhood Experiences on Depression according to Young Schema Model: A Scoping Review. J Affect Disord. 2019 Mar 1;246:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2018.12.006. Epub 2018 Dec 10.
citation: Malogiannis IA, Arntz A, Spyropoulou A, Tsartsara E, Aggeli A, Karveli S, Vlavianou M, Pehlivanidis A, Papadimitriou GN, Zervas I. Schema therapy for patients with chronic depression: a single case series study. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2014 Sep;45(3):319-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.02.003. Epub 2014 Feb 24.
citation: Renner F, Arntz A, Peeters FP, Lobbestael J, Huibers MJ. Schema therapy for chronic depression: Results of a multiple single case series. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;51:66-73. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.12.001. Epub 2015 Dec 8.
citation: Moeller SB, Gbyl K, Hjorthoj C, Andreasen M, Austin SF, Buchholtz PE, Fonss L, Hjerrild S, Hogervorst L, Jorgensen MB, Ladegaard N, Martiny K, Meile J, Packness A, Sigaard KR, Straarup K, Straszek SPV, Soerensen CH, Welcher B, Videbech P. Treatment of difficult-to-treat depression - clinical guideline for selected interventions. Nord J Psychiatry. 2022 Apr;76(3):177-188. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2021.1952303. Epub 2021 Aug 28.
citation: Riso LP, Miyatake RK, Thase ME. The search for determinants of chronic depression: a review of six factors. J Affect Disord. 2002 Jul;70(2):103-15. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0327(01)00376-7.
citation: Rozental A, Castonguay L, Dimidjian S, Lambert M, Shafran R, Andersson G, Carlbring P. Negative effects in psychotherapy: commentary and recommendations for future research and clinical practice. BJPsych Open. 2018 Jul 25;4(4):307-312. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2018.42. eCollection 2018 Jul.
citation: Ruhe HG, van Rooijen G, Spijker J, Peeters FP, Schene AH. Staging methods for treatment resistant depression. A systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2012 Mar;137(1-3):35-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.02.020. Epub 2011 Mar 23.
citation: Yakin D, Grasman R, Arntz A. Schema modes as a common mechanism of change in personality pathology and functioning: Results from a randomized controlled trial. Behav Res Ther. 2020 Mar;126:103553. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2020.103553. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
citation: Jobst A, Brakemeier EL, Buchheim A, Caspar F, Cuijpers P, Ebmeier KP, Falkai P, Jan van der Gaag R, Gaebel W, Herpertz S, Kurimay T, Sabass L, Schnell K, Schramm E, Torrent C, Wasserman D, Wiersma J, Padberg F. European Psychiatric Association Guidance on psychotherapy in chronic depression across Europe. Eur Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;33:18-36. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.12.003. Epub 2016 Feb 6.
citation: Renner F, Lobbestael J, Peeters F, Arntz A, Huibers M. Early maladaptive schemas in depressed patients: stability and relation with depressive symptoms over the course of treatment. J Affect Disord. 2012 Feb;136(3):581-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.10.027. Epub 2011 Nov 25.