Psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapies for depression: The evidence base

27Citations
Citations of this article
104Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This article argues that the current approach to guideline development for the treatment of depression is not supported by the evidence: clearly depression is not a disease for which treatment efficacy is best determined by short-term randomised controlled trials. As a result, important findings have been marginalised. Different principles of evidence-gathering are described. When a wider range of the available evidence is critically considered the case for dynamic approaches to the treatment of depression can be seen to be stronger than is often thought. Broadly, the benefits of short-term psychodynamic therapies are equivalent in size to the effects of antidepressants and cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT). The benefits of CBT may occur more quickly, but those of short-term psychodynamic therapies may continue to increase after treatment. There may be a ceiling on the effects of short-term treatments of whatever type. Longer-term psychodynamic treatments may improve associated social, work and personal dysfunctions as well as reductions in depressive symptoms.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Taylor, D. (2008). Psychoanalytic and psychodynamic therapies for depression: The evidence base. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14(6), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.107.004382

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free