ArticleBJPsych open2021
Positive psychology interventions in in-patients with depression: influences of comorbidity and subjective evaluation of the training programme.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acceptability of home-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in bipolar depression: thematic analysis of individual views.BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led psychological pain solution-focused intervention for depressed inpatients: study protocol.BMC nursing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.