ArticlePsychological medicine2026
Identifying distinct trajectories of change in anhedonia during psychological treatment for depression.
Article in Psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying distinct trajectories of change in anhedonia during psychological treatment for depression.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile initial anhedonia predicts poor psychotherapy outcomes, little is known about its trajectory during treatment. This study aimed to: (1) identify distinct anhedonia trajectories during high-intensity depression treatment; (2) examine patient and treatment predictors; and (3) compare outcomes across treatment types.
methodsSessional anhedonia scores (PHQ-9 item-1) from 22,605 patients in NHS talking therapies (primarily receiving either cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT] or counseling for depression [CfD]) were analyzed using latent growth curve (LGC) and growth mixture modeling. Multinomial logistic regression examined predictors of class membership.
resultsA quadratic LGC model best fit the data, reflecting a decrease in symptoms before leveling out. Six latent classes emerged. Notably, three "non-responder" classes characterized by linear-stable or minimal-change patterns comprised over 50% of the sample (51.3%). In contrast, two "responder" classes (41.4%) exhibited improvement, typically shifting between sessions 4 and 6. This suggests an early "inflection point" where the trajectory of recovery is established. Poorer response was predicted by unemployment, chronic health conditions, psychotropic medication, and longer wait times. There was only a sufficient sample size to compare CBT and CfD treatment types. While CBT was associated with membership in specific classes, the probability of being a "responder" did not differ significantly between CBT and CfD.
conclusionsMost patients followed non-responder trajectories, highlighting a major efficacy gap for anhedonia in standard depression protocols. The 4-6 session window suggests that if improvement is not observed early, the treatment strategy may require further evaluation. Further research into targeted anhedonia interventions is essential.
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.