Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34078512›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2021

Positive psychology interventions in in-patients with depression: influences of comorbidity and subjective evaluation of the training programme.

Antje Stemmler, Regina Staehle, Tina Heinemann, Matthias Bender, Juergen Hennig

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Antje StemmlerDepartment of Personality and Biological Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Sports Sciences, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Germany.
Regina StaehleDepartment of Psychology, University of Kassel, Germany.
Tina HeinemannDepartment of Psychology, University of Kassel, Germany.
Matthias BenderVitos Hospital for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Germany.
Juergen HennigDepartment of Personality and Biological Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Sports Sciences, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Germany; and Center for Psychobiology and Behavioral Medicine, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0471-4281
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DEUniversity of Kassel · DEVitos · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies on positive psychology interventions (PPIs) have frequently demonstrated benefits for healthy participants and patients. However, effect sizes are moderate, and underlying inter-individual differences in responses were rarely investigated.

aimsWe investigated whether severity of depression and subjective evaluation of PPIs are relevant sources of variance in this respect.

methodA 4-week group PPI programme (one 45-min session per week) was offered to 38 in-patients with depression. The control group (n = 38) was carefully matched and received treatment as usual. In the PPI group, emotional states were recorded before and after each session (responsiveness). Beck Depression Inventory-II scores at hospital admission and discharge were used to evaluate clinical effectiveness. The number of comorbidities (as an indicator of severity of disease) and patients' evaluations of the PPI sessions were used as additional independent factors for overall treatment outcome.

resultsThe PPI induced a highly significant improvement in positive emotional state and decrease in negative emotional state, indicating responsiveness. Moreover, positive affectivity increased from week to week only in patients with a low number of comorbidities (indicating effectiveness). With respect to overall treatment outcome (Beck Depression Inventory-II scores), positive attitude toward the PPI resulted in the largest improvement.

conclusionsThe results partly explain the variance in the effectiveness of PPIs. Moreover, they support the idea of personalised psychotherapy, and may inform discussion on whether patients with depression should be included in PPIs. However, additional individual characteristics should increase knowledge about individual predictors for effectiveness.

Indexed as

Comorbiditydepressiongroup psychotherapyin-patient treatmentpositive psychology

Identifiers

PMID34078512
PMCPMC8220852
OpenAlexW3163986065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.