Interpersonal Contexts and Depression

I experienced conflicting opinions about the Coyne article this week. On one hand, I was really excited to read something about the involvement and importance of the interpersonal environment in depression...this is generally what I want to research. In my opinion, close relationships are inextricably linked to one's ability to function, cope, regulate emotions, and to successfully handle life complications. Coyne made some interesting assertions about this idea. Specifically, I was intrigued by his emphasis on significant others involved in the lives of depressed people. I think alot of us tend to attribute the dysfunction in depressed people's relationships to the depressed individual themselves (i.e intrapsychic causes) and do not consider what the other people in their lives bring to the equation. We assume that there is something inherently wrong with the depressed person like having distorted cognitions that contribute to interpersonal problems, but we often fall short of really considering the role of the depressed person's environment, and Coyne did a nice job emphasizing the reciprocal nature of people and the enviroment. Back to the significant others piece though...the article really got me thinking about the impact that these people have on a depressed person's ability to recover vs. remain in a depressive episode. The recurrence factor in depression is important here. Because depression is a recurrent disorder, a spouse for instance could learn to be understanding, sympathetic and sensitive to their depressed partner which would likely contribute to recovery. On the other hand, I can see many spouses becoming fed up, impatient and irritated, especially after dealing with several recurrences which could exacerbate the depression. It's almost like a never ending cycle in this case--someone becomes depressed which decreases the quality of their relationships and social interactions which only makes them more depressed.

Towards the end of the article, however, I was a alittle disappointed and confused. Actually, the summary pretty much sums this up. I found it kind of annoying that Coyne admitted to publishing an inadequate interactional model of depression in his 1976 article, but then basically used this model as the basis of his arguments. Additionally, the overall tone of the article stressed depression research to move beyond theoretical interpretations and assumptions, yet he supported an intervention-namely strategic therapy- that has not been empirically validated. Coyne states on pag 385: "Much of the strategic therapy literature consists of provocative case examples and transcripts; there are limited outcome data availalbe for the approach." In my opinion, if one is going to necessitate empirical support for the explanation of a disorder, he/she should be consistent and endorse treatments that have empirical support as well.

RP and SC

I enjoyed the readings this week because substance abuse and sleep problems are two interesting topics that I don't know much about and because I think they are going to be really relevant to our clinical work. I can imagine that a large percentage of people experiencing emotional distress, for instance, use drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism AND have difficulty sleeping. However, I would venture to guess that are rarely the topics that are talked about in therapy, especially in the beginning. If someone comes to therapy because he/she is extrememly depressed, experiencing suicidal thoughts, and is drinking every night to deal with these horrible thoughts, the therapist probably won't target the person's drinking right away (maybe because drinking is the only thing keeping the person alive at the moment). However, I think there comes a point in therapy when they need to be addressed. In addition, I think it is important to evaluate a client's everyday habits and routines (i.e, how much sleep they get, how much caffeine/alcohol they drink, how much stress they are under at work) because these things could really be driving thier problem and probably get overlooked alot of the time.

I appreciated the acknowledgement by Witkiewitz & Marlett (2004) about the complexity of relapse and thought they did a great job reconceptualizing relapse as a dynamic process. I know that their model does not presume that one factor has more influence than another, but the whole time I was reading the article, I kept thinking about personal experiences and conversations that I've had with past substance abusers. A few of my uncles and cousins were involved with drugs and/or alcohol addictions and they've unanimously said that they attribute their ability to overcome the addiction to the support of family and friends. Granted, it is most likely not the sole factor in their recovery and it was probably most helpful AFTER they worked on other things like self regulation, fighting cravings, avoiding risky situations, etc. but I think interpersonal determinants (as the article calls them!) are more important than the article gives them credit for.

One final comment: I was laughing to myself when I read the SC article because I read it in my bed right before I went to sleep the other night... and I kept thinking that I should get up and read it in another room or else my bed would become a cue for arousal and not sleep! Then I rememebered that I've been reading in my bed for years and it hasn't been a problem since. But if I ever develop sleeping problems, I'll know why! Anyway, SC seems very practical, but as the article mentions, one main problem is compliance. I know I would have a tough time getting out of bed every night, especially in the winter time. The article gave some suggestions (such as setting up slippers and a robe next to your bed), but I'd be interested to know the percentage of clients who say they follow the instructions but actally don't, as well as strategies that a therapist could use to increase compliance.

The Importance of Context...

I really enjoyed the Jacobson et al. (2001) article on Behavioral Activation, especially the section on "demedicalizing depression" (pg. 257). I completely agree with the general theme of BA that one has to take into account the environment and the context within which a disorder, especially depression, arises. Jacobsen et al (2001) presented some really powerful examples that make it hard for someone to deny the importance of individual life events as risk factors for depression. Models that focus exclusively on genes are flawed, as Jocobson et al (2001) point out. For example, a genetic predisposition to depression cannot comprehensively explain why so many people experience depression after traumtic events, such as the loss of a parent or spouse. Furthermore, I appreciate the idiographic approach that BA takes on and the emphasis on not making "a priori assumptions that an event is reinforcing until we have seen that it increases behavior or has a positive effect on mood" (pg. 257). This makes so much sense to me because what may be a positively reinforcing activity for one person may not be for another person (i.e, "focused activation"). I imagine that clients in BA therapy probably feel that the therapist takes a genuine interest in their specific problem and really tries to understand how they, as an individual, can improve. I also like that BA focuses on specific, goal-directed behaviors and does not assume that mood needs to change before behavior can. BA seems to be a very proactive, practical approach to positive change, and I really like that! However, I did find myself questioning the effectivess of the "attention to experience" part of BA. Jacobson et al (2001) readily points out the tendency for depressed people to ruminate, which is a type of negative thinking. However, because BA is strictly a behavioral model, the content of these negative thoughts is never addressed, only the context or the function of the thought. The BA therapist, therefore, trains clients to pay more attention to their environment as an exposure exercise inorder to attempt to decrease their rumination and increase their activation strategies. I don't know if there is efficacy literature on this particular BA component but in my opinion, it seems like targeting the negative thought itself might be more productive. This was one area of BA that I found to be pretty abstract as compared to other components of the model. Overall though, I really like the basis of Behavioral Activation and I'm interested to know the outcome of Jacobson et al's clinical trial that compares BA to CT!!

CBT

I thought the readings this week were a great overview of both CBT and RET (or I guess REBT, according to Ellis). I did, however, have some concerns about the Butler et al. (2006) article. The general theme seemed to be that CBT (or in some cases CT) was found to be superior than wait list, placebo or no treatment controls for most of the disorders that were discussed in the article. I'm still left wondering how well CBT does compared to other alternative treatments, such as IPT or psychodynamic therapy. Some people may be better off when they get treated with CBT than if they had not received treatment at all, but is it really the BEST, most effective treatment when compared to other therapies? I think there needs to be more research/evidence on this issue. We are doing a disservice (is that a word?) to clients if we are not confident that the treatment we are using is the best treatment out there for them. In addition, while CBT appears to work well for a subset of disorders like phobias, OCD, and PTSD, the article lacked a discussion of its effectiveness for other disorders, particularly personality disorders. The disorders within the internalizing realm (depression, anxiety, etc.) do make up a large portion of the types of clients in therapy, but by failing to address disorders or symptoms outside of that subset, we should not make the generalization that CBT is the best form of psychotherapy.

I also would like to comment on the issue of follow-up research. In general, I think there needs to be more of it and I think there needs to be a more systematic way to measure it. For instance, there was absolutely no follow up findings for CBT on chronic pain, bulimia, and PTSD in Butler et al.'s (2006) article. In my opinion, knowing the long term effects of a treatment for specific disorders are essential. For instance, if one treatment shows immediate effects but does not persist over time, then it might make sense to treat the client with an inital treatment and then provide "maintenance therapy" using another type of therapy that shows greater long term benefits (this may be unrealistic given all the insurance issues, but in an ideal world it makes sense!) In addition, when follow up studies are completed, I think it is necessary for researchers and clinicians to be extrememly clear about what exactly they are measuring, the outcome measures used, the length of time between end of treatment and folllow up evaluation, etc. When a treatment is shown to produce "clinically significant change", for instance, what does that mean? A slight reduction in symptoms or problematic behavior after 6 months of therapy might be life changing for a schizophrenic or an anti-social person, but may have much less impact on someone who is midly depressed. In such a case, are both treatments equally effective in producing "positive change" at follow up?