Sixty patients with major depression participated in the study. Their sessions were videotaped and trained raters rated how much the therapists used cognitive versus behavioral methods.

What they found was only two aspects of therapist behavior predicted improvement between sessions. Depression was measured after every session, and these measurements showed that patients felt better when therapists used cognitive techniques, but didn’t improve when the therapists focused on behavioral techniques.

Patients also showed greater improvement when they adhered to suggestions made by the therapist, which is not surprising.

The behavioral methods used were techniques such as having patients schedule their activities to become more active, and tracking how they actually spent their time. This is called behavioral activation, and previous studies have suggested it is an effective approach to treating depression. The behavioral activation model is that depressed patients tend to do very little, and this leads to further depression. Patients are encouraged to schedule activities that are fun, or activities that provide a sense of mastery or success. This leads to a lessening of depressive feelings.

The cognitive methods were techniques such as writing down what your thoughts are, and using cognitive therapy to challenge or modify distorted thinking.

So how to interpret the results of this study?

It’s only one small study and I would be cautious about taking too much from it. It does suggest that at least in the early sessions of therapy, cognitive methods may be superior to behavioral methods. This makes sense to me because early in therapy depressed patients feel a lot of pain and lethargy, and getting them to suddenly increase their activity can be very challenging and perhaps too difficult. This may lead to a sense of failure which increases depression rather than reducing it. On the other hand, using cognitive methods may lead to more immediate sense of control and relief, which would tend to reduce depression levels.

My sense is that later in therapy behavioral activation techniques are very useful. But typically in order to get patients to cooperate with these techniques there needs to be a strong alliance with the therapist. This takes some time to build.

It would have been interesting if they had continued the study beyond the first five sessions, and looked at whether over time the relative importance of the cognitive versus behavioral techniques would have shifted.

The study shows that therapist behavior in sessions does matter. This is one of my pet peeves. Many psychotherapists claim to use cognitive behavioral therapy, yet fail to actually use any cognitive behavioral techniques on a regular basis in sessions. This study shows that therapist adherence to structuring sessions and using cognitive techniques matters.

So from a consumer point of view there are a few take-home lessons.

1. If you are seeking cognitive behavioral therapy, make sure your therapist actually does cognitive behavioral therapy during sessions. This means they should structure the sessions clearly, as opposed to simply letting you talk about whatever is on your mind. It also means they should be asking you to track your self talk in written form, during sessions go over those thoughts, helping you learn to identify and correct distortions in the thoughts. If they don’t do these behaviors, and therapy feels free-form, then you’re probably not getting cognitive behavioral therapy, and you might want to look elsewhere. If you don’t regularly get homework to do between tasks, you aren’t receiving cognitive behavioral therapy.

2. At least in the early part of therapy pure cognitive therapy techniques may be more effective than behavioral techniques. You may want to focus your own homework more on identifying and changing your inner thoughts, rather than trying to increase positive behaviors. This probably will yield more relief of depression.

3. The study also confirmed that when clients cooperate and are more involved using cognitive therapy techniques, they improve faster. So even if you’re feeling skeptical, try to fully participate during sessions and in between sessions, as that provides you the best chance of more rapid relief.

Your off to analyze his thoughts psychologist,

Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

But a new study at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte suggests that brain changes may happen much more quickly, in as few as four days!

Student volunteers were randomly assigned to either practice mindfulness meditation or listen to the reading of JRR Tolkien’s The Hobbit, for 20 minutes a day, for four days. The groups were tested using behavioral tests of mood, memory, visual attention, attention processing, and vigilance. The meditative practice was a simple mindfulness technique.  Participants were told to focus on their breath, and that when thoughts distracted them to notice the thought, and then refocus on the breathing.

What were the results? Both groups improved in mood, but only the meditation group improved in cognitive measures. In one challenging mental task, the meditation group did 10 times better than the reading group. It appeared that meditation improved the ability to sustain attention and vigilance.

This is an exciting study which hopefully will be replicated and expanded with their neuroimaging to see if there are functional or structural brain changes after brief meditation practice.

To summarize, it appears that a brief four-day practice of mindfulness meditation can significantly improve cognitive functioning that is related to attention and vigilance.

How lasting is this effect? Does it wear off in hours, days, etc.? What is the dose response ratio of meditation to cognitive functioning improvement? For instance, would eight days of meditation practice create even more cognitive improvement?

In any case, it’s worth practicing meditation at least briefly to see its effects on your mind and your emotions. Commit to 20 minutes a day for one week, and see what happens for you.

Now I’m off to meditate…

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

I was intrigued. Discovering a gene that caused late onset Alzheimer’s would be a major scientific breakthrough, perhaps leading to effective new treatments. So I read the article carefully.

To summarize the findings, a United States research team looked at the entire genome of 2269 people who had late onset Alzheimer’s and 3107 people who did not. They were looking for differences in the genome.

In the people who had late onset Alzheimer’s, 9% had a variation in the gene MTHFD1L, which lives on chromosome 6. Of those who did not have late-onset Alzheimer’s 5% had this variant.

So is this an important finding? The article suggested it was. But I think this is a prime example of bad science reporting. For instance, they went on to say that this particular gene is involved with the metabolism of folate, which influences levels of homocysteine. It’s a known fact that levels of homocysteine can affect heart disease and Alzheimer’s. So is it the gene, or is it the level of homocysteine?

The main reason why I consider this an example of stupid science reporting is that the difference is trivial. Let me give you an example of a better way to report this. The researchers could have instead reported that among people with late-onset Alzheimer’s, 91% of them had no gene changes, and then among people without late onset Alzheimer’s 95% of them had normal genes. But this doesn’t sound very impressive, and calls into question whether measurement errors would account for the differences.

So this very expensive genome test yields absolutely no predictive value in terms of who will develop Alzheimer’s and who will not. There is a known genetic variant, called APOE, which lives on chromosome 19. Forty percent of those who develop late-onset Alzheimer’s have this gene, while only 25 to 30% of the general population has it. So even this gene, which has a much stronger association with Alzheimer’s, isn’t a particularly useful clinical test.

The other reason this is an example of stupid science is that basically this is a negative finding. To scan the entire human genome looking for differences between normal elderly people and elderly people with Alzheimer’s, and discover only a subtle and tiny difference, must’ve been a huge disappointment for the researchers. If I had been the journal editor reviewing this study, I doubt I would’ve published it. Imagine a similar study of an antidepressant, which found that in the antidepressant group, 9% of people got better, and in the placebo group 5% got better. I doubt this would get published.

Interestingly enough, the study hasn’t been published yet, but is being presented as a paper at the April 14 session of the American Academy of Neurology conference in Toronto. This is another clue to reading scientific research. If it hasn’t been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, be very skeptical of the research. Good research usually gets published in top journals, and research that is more dubious often is presented at conferences but never published. It’s much easier to get a paper accepted for a conference than in a science journal.

It’s also important when reading media coverage of scientific research to read beyond the headlines, and to look at the actual numbers that are being reported. If they are very small numbers, or very small differences, be very skeptical of whether they mean anything at all.

As quoted in the article, “While lots of genetic variants have been singled out as possible contributors to Alzheimer’s, the findings often can’t be replicated or repeated, leaving researchers unsure if the results are a coincidence or actually important,” said Dr. Ron Petersen, director of the Mayo Alzheimer’s disease research Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

So to summarize, to be a savvy consumer of media coverage of scientific research:

1. Be skeptical of media reports of scientific research that hasn’t been published in top scientific journals. Good research gets published in peer-reviewed journals, which means that other scientists skeptically read the article before it’s published.

2. Read below the headlines and look for actual numbers that are reported, and apply common sense to these numbers. If the differences are very small in absolute numbers, it often means that the research has very little clinical usefulness. Even if the differences are large in terms of percentages, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are useful findings.

An example would be a finding that drinking a particular type of bourbon increases a very rare type of brain tumor from one in 2,000,00 to three in 2 million. If this was reported in percentage terms the headline would say drinking this bourbon raises the risk of brain tumor by 300%, which would definitely put me and many other people off from drinking bourbon. (By the way, this is a completely fictitious example.) But if you compare the risk to something that people do every day such as driving, and revealed the driving is 1000 times more risky than drinking this type of bourbon, it paints the research in a very different light.

3. Be very skeptical of research that has not been reproduced or replicated by other scientists. There’s a long history in science of findings that cannot be reproduced or replicated by other scientists, and therefore don’t hold up as valid research findings.

4. On the web, be very skeptical of research that’s presented on sites that sell products. Unfortunately a common strategy for selling products, particularly vitamin supplements, is to present pseudoscientific research that supports the use of the supplement. In general, any site that sells a product cannot be relied on for objective information about that product. It’s much better to go to primarily information sites like Web M.D., or the Mayo Clinic site, or one can go directly to the original scientific articles (in some cases), by using PubMed.

So be a smart consumer of science, so that you can tell the difference between smart science and stupid science.

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

It turns out that there are some tricks. These are written about in a wonderful new book called 59 Seconds: Think a Little, Change a Lot by Richard Wiseman. I’ll be blogging more on the book, which is a concise, science-based set of tips for improving your life, and being happier, healthier, and more productive. I highly recommend the book. It’s a fun, easy read, full of great research and life tips.

(Full Disclosure: If you click on the link, and buy, PsychologyLounge will get a small payment, so you’ll be supporting this blog. If you don’t want to support this blog, just log into your own Amazon account, and search for the book.)

So let’s review conventional wisdom first.  Job interviews are based on academic training and work experiences, right? The candidate who gets the job is the one with the best academic credentials and the most impressive work history, correct?

That’s what most people think and they are wrong!

Chad Higgins and Timothy Judge did research looking at factors that influenced interviewers decisions about job candidates. I won’t bore you with the details of their research, but I will tell you what they found. First, they found that the qualifications and work experience of the candidate didn’t matter.

It turns out that the most important predictor of who will be offered the job was a magical and mysterious quality: the pleasantness and likability of the candidate!

So now you’re thinking: “Great, I need a personality transplant in order to become nicer and more likable. Thanks, Gottlieb, years of therapy for that one no doubt!”

No, you don’t need a personality transplant. You just need to follow a simple set of behavioral guidelines.

What were the behaviors that communicated likability? They were very simple:

1. Small talk. Talk about something that interests both you and the interviewer, even if it’s not about work. You notice a picture of them fishing, and you share fishing tales.

2. Praise. Find something you like about the organization they represent and compliment it. Or praise or compliment the interviewer in a genuine way.

3. Enthusiasm. Show your excitement about the job being offered and the company.

4. Connection. Smile and make eye contact.

5. Involvement. Show interest in the person interviewing you. Ask smart questions about the type of person they are looking for, and how the job fits into the organization.

That’s it. Do this and you will greatly increase your likability, and with it, your chance of getting a job. I suspect this would work pretty well in other interview situations too, like blind dates, but that’s more research…

P.S. Two more quick tips from 59 Seconds. If you have weaknesses that will most likely come up, bring them up early in the interview, that increases your credibility, and gives you time to use likability to your advantage. If you have a particular strength, share it later in the interview, in order to look more humble, and end on a strong note.

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

http://holykaw.alltop.com/depressing-effectiveness-of-anti-depressants

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Based on scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the researchers divided the patients into mild to moderately depressed, severely depressed, and very severely depressed. This is a 17 item scale that is filled out by a psychologist or psychiatrist, and measures various aspects of depression. It is used in most studies of depression. They then analyzed the response to antidepressant medication based on how severe the initial depression was.

The two antidepressants studied were imipramine and paroxetine (Paxil). Imipramine is an older, tricyclic antidepressant, and Paxil is a more modern SSRI antidepressant.

What did they find? They were looking at the size of the difference between the medication groups and the placebo groups. Rather than do the typical thing of just looking at statistical significance, which is simply a measure of whether the difference could be explained by chance, they looked at clinical significance. They used the definition used by NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence in England), which was an effect size of 0.50 or a difference of 3 points on the HDRS. This is defined as a medium effect size.

What they found was very disheartening to those who use antidepressant medications in their practices. They divided the patients into three groups based on their initial HDRS scores: mild to moderate depression (HDRS 18 or less), severe depression (HDRS 19 to 22), and very severe depression (HDRS 23 or greater).

For the mild to moderately depressed patients, the effect size was d=0.11, and for severely depressed patients the effect size was d = 0.17. Both of these effect sizes are below the standard description of a small effect which is 0.20. For the patients in the very severe group, the effect size was 0.47 which is just below the accepted value of 0.50 for a medium effect size.

When they did further statistical analysis, they found that in order to meet the NICE criteria of effect size of a 3 points difference, patients had to have an initial HDRS score of 25 or above.  To meet the criteria of an effect size of .50, or medium effect size, they had to have a score of 25 or above, and to have a large effect size, 27 or above.

What does this all mean for patient care? It means that for the vast majority of clinically depressed patients who fall below the very severely depressed range, antidepressant medications most likely won’t help. The sadder news is that even for the very severely depressed, medications have a very modest effect. Looking at the scoring of the HDRS, the normal, undepressed range is 0 to 7. The very severely depressed patients had scores of 25 or above, and a medium effect size was a drop in scores of 3 or more points compared to placebo patients. Looking at the one graph in the paper that show the actual drops in HDRS scores, the medication group had a mean drop of 12 points when their initial score was 25. That means they went from 25 to 13, which is still in the depressed range, although only mildly depressed. Patients who initially were at 38 dropped by roughly 20 points, ending at 18, which is still pretty depressed. And the placebo group had only slightly worse results.

One interesting thing is how strong the placebo effects are in these studies. It seems that for depressions less serious than very severe, placebo pills work as well as antidepressant medication.  Is this because antidepressants don’t work very well, or because placebos work too well? It’s hard to know. Maybe doctors should give their patients sugar pills, and call the new drug Eliftimood!

So in summary, here are the main observations I make from this study.

• If you are very severely depressed, antidepressants may help, and are worth trying.
• If you are mildly, moderately, or even severely depressed, there is little evidence that antidepressants will help better than a placebo. You would be better off with CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), which has a proven track record with less severe depressions, and which has no side effects.
• Interestingly, CBT is less effective for the most severe depressions, so for these kinds of depressions medication treatment makes a lot of sense.
• If you are taking antidepressants and having good results, don’t change what you are doing. You may be wired in such a way that you are a good responder to antidepressants.
• If you have been taking antidepressants for mild to severe (but not very severe) depression, and not getting very good results, this is consistent with the research, and you might want to discuss alternative treatments such as CBT with your doctor. Don’t just stop the medications, as this can produce withdrawal symptoms, work with your doctor to taper off them.
• Even in very severely depressed patients, for whom antidepressants have some effects, they may only get the patient to a state of moderate depression, but not to “cure”. To get to an undepressed, normal state, behavioral therapy may be necessary in addition to medications.
• How do you find out how depressed you are? Unfortunately there is no online version of the HDRS for direct comparison. You may want to see a professional psychologist or psychiatrist if you think you might be depressed, and ask them to administer the HDRS to you.  There are also online depression tests, such as here and here. If you score in the highest ranges you might want to consider trying antidepressant medications, if you score lower you might want to first try CBT.
• The most important thing is not to ignore depression, as it tends to get worse over time. Get some help, talk to a professional.

I’m off to take my Obecalp pills now, as it’s been raining here in Northern California for more than a week, and I need a boost in my mood. (Hint: what does Obecalp spell backwards?)

Copyright © 2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

So what does buy happiness? We have a surprising answer from our friends across the pond, at the University of Warwick in England. A new study published online Nov. 18 in the journal Health Economics, Policy and Law surveyed thousands of people on  their levels of happiness and correlated it with external factors such as a pay raise or winning a lottery prize, and compared this to receiving psychotherapy.  Astonishingly, even to me, a psychologist, the increase in happiness from a $1329 course of therapy was so large that to equal it people had to get a pay raise of more than $41,542! That’s a ratio of 32 times! That means a dollar spent on therapy boosts happiness 32 times more than the same dollar received in a pay raise or lottery prize.

As the study author Chris Boyce, of the University of Warwick, summarized:  “Often the importance of money for improving our well-being and bringing greater happiness is vastly over-valued in our societies. The benefits of having good mental health, on the other hand, are often not fully appreciated and people do not realize the powerful effect that psychological therapy, such as non-directive counseling, can have on improving our well-being.”

Bravo,Chris! Now when patients ask me whether therapy is worth the money, I can confidently say that research suggests it might be one of the best investments you can make in yourself and your own happiness. (And it’s okay to get a raise, as long as you spend it on therapy!)

The only problem I can see with this article being published is that it may lower MY happiness, as I might get busier, perhaps earning more money, but not having time to see my own therapist!

So to answer the original question, does money buy happiness? Money doesn’t buy happiness; it buys psychotherapy, which yields 32 times more happiness than money!

Copyright © 2009-2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D.  The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Link to study: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_92421.html

• “bupropion SR (sustained release; Zyban, GlaxoSmithKline), 150 mg twice daily for 1 week before a target quit date and 8 weeks after the quit date;
• nicotine lozenge (2 or 4 mg) for 12 weeks after the quit date;
• nicotine patch (24-hour, 21, 14, and 7 mg titrated down during 8 weeks after quitting;
• nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge;
• bupropion SR plus nicotine lozenge; or
• placebo (1 matched to each of the 5 treatments).”

Everyone received six 10- to 20-minute individual counseling sessions, with the first 2 sessions scheduled before quitting.

What were the results?

Three treatments worked better than placebo during the immediate quit period: the patch, bupropion plus lozenge, and patch plus lozenge.

At six months, only one treatment was effective; the nicotine patch plus nicotine lozenge. The exact numbers , as confirmed by carbon monoxide tests, were: “40.1% for the patch plus lozenge, 34.4% for the patch alone, 33.5% for the lozenge alone, 33.2% for bupropion plus lozenge, 31.8% for bupropion alone, and 22.2% for placebo.”

So we see that the combined nicotine substitution therapy worked best, followed closely by either nicotine substitute alone. Zyban or Welbutrin (bupropion) was a bust, no more effective than the simple nicotine lozenge. The only advantage to Zyban would be if one prefers not to use nicotine substitutes.

Now I mentioned that they omitted one drug treatment, which is the drug Chantix (varenicline). This is probably because the drug is a nicotine receptor blocker, so wouldn’t have made sense to combine with nicotine substitutes. Also, there have been some disturbing case reports of people having severe depressive reactions to Chantrix.

Of course, there was one glaring omission that any card-carrying psychologist would spot in a moment–the lack of a behavior therapy component. Giving 6 ten minute sessions is hardly therapy. I would have liked to see true smoking cessation behavior therapy combined with the drug treatments.

So, if you’re trying to quit smoking, combine nicotine patches with nicotine lozenges, sold in any pharmacy. If you do, you have a 40 percent chance of succeeding at 6 months.

Now I am off to have a cigarette….just kidding.

Study: http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/712074_print

Copyright © 2009/2010 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

The article documents how most psychologists fail to provide empirically proven treatment approaches and instead use methods which are often ineffective. The truth is there is very little evidence for most of the types of therapy commonly performed in private practices by psychologists and by Masters level therapists. If you are shopping for the most effective types of therapy you need to find a practitioner who is skilled at cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) which is one of the few psychotherapy approaches that has been proven to work on a variety of problems.

Another interesting article in Newsweek about evidence-based treatment discussed bulimia. Here’s the summary:

So the bottom line is this:

1. Most psychologists who don’t practice Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) are just winging it, using treatments that haven’t been shown to work by scientific studies. It’s as if you went to a regular physician and got treatment with leaches!

2. Many psychologists claim to use CBT but haven’t really trained in the use of CBT, or have taken a weekend workshop. Unless they prescribe weekly homework that involves writing down thoughts, and learning skills to analyze and change your thoughts, then they aren’t really doing CBT, and I recommend you find someone else.

3. If you have an anxiety disorder, depression, bulimia, or obsessive compulsive disorder, and haven’t been offered CBT, then you are not receiving state of the art treatment.

Copyright © 2009 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline.

• If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
• If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2 for you.
• If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5, and 6.
• If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call.
• If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press.If you are depressed, it doesn’t matter which number you press. No one will answer.
• If you are delusional and occasionally hallucinate, please be aware that the thing you are holding on the side of your head is alive and about to bite off your ear.
• If you have an anger management problem, please throw the phone against the wall to select an option.

Anyway, I thought it was funny, and hope I haven’t offended anyone by posting it.

In all seriousness, the real messages that many psychiatrists have are almost as funny. You know, the one that says, “If you have a ‘true’ emergency, please go to the nearest emergency room or call 911.” I’ve always thought this is a stupid message, that is insensitive and uncaring. Like patients don’t know about 911 or the emergency room. I believe a better message is to offer a pager number or cell phone number where a patient can reach me, their psychologist, rather than an impersonal 911 operator. It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, I can usually help the client through crisis quickly and effectively.

Copyright © 2009 Andrew Gottlieb, Ph.D. /The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions