The Journal of clinical psychiatry · 2008
Family treatment for bipolar disorder: family impairment by treatment interactions.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miller Ivan W, Keitner Gabor I, Ryan Christine E, Uebelacker Lisa A, Johnson Sheri L, Solomon David A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: There is a clear need for psychosocial treatments to supplement pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder. In this study, the efficacy of 2 forms of adjunctive family intervention were compared to pharmacotherapy alone. In addition to evaluating overall differences between treatments, a chief goal was to examine whether family impairment levels moderated the effects of family intervention on outcome.
METHOD: Ninety-two patients diagnosed with bipolar I disorder (according to DSM-III-R) were randomly assigned to receive (1) pharmaco-therapy alone, (2) family therapy + pharmacotherapy, or (3) multi-family psychoeducational group + pharmacotherapy. Treatments and assessments continued for up to 28 months. Primary outcome measures were number of episodes per year and percentage of time symptomatic throughout the entire follow-up period. The study was conducted from September 1992 through March 1999.
RESULTS: No significant main effects were found for treatment condition. Thus, for the total sample, the addition of a family intervention did not improve outcome. However, there were significant treatment condition by family impairment interactions (p < .05). In patients from families with high levels of impairment, the addition of a family intervention (family therapy or psycho-educational group) resulted in a significantly improved course of illness, particularly the number of depressive episodes (p < .01) and proportion of time spent in a depressive episode (p < .01). These effects were relatively large (Cohen d = 0.7-1.0), with patients receiving either family intervention having roughly half the number of depressive episodes and amount of time spent depressed as those receiving pharmaco-therapy alone. In contrast, for patients from low-impairment families, the addition of a family intervention did not improve course of illness.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings build on previous literature suggesting the importance of treatment matching within the mood disorders and suggest that the utility of adding family interventions for bipolar patients and their families may depend upon the family's level of impairment.
METHOD: Ninety-two patients diagnosed with bipolar I disorder (according to DSM-III-R) were randomly assigned to receive (1) pharmaco-therapy alone, (2) family therapy + pharmacotherapy, or (3) multi-family psychoeducational group + pharmacotherapy. Treatments and assessments continued for up to 28 months. Primary outcome measures were number of episodes per year and percentage of time symptomatic throughout the entire follow-up period. The study was conducted from September 1992 through March 1999.
RESULTS: No significant main effects were found for treatment condition. Thus, for the total sample, the addition of a family intervention did not improve outcome. However, there were significant treatment condition by family impairment interactions (p < .05). In patients from families with high levels of impairment, the addition of a family intervention (family therapy or psycho-educational group) resulted in a significantly improved course of illness, particularly the number of depressive episodes (p < .01) and proportion of time spent in a depressive episode (p < .01). These effects were relatively large (Cohen d = 0.7-1.0), with patients receiving either family intervention having roughly half the number of depressive episodes and amount of time spent depressed as those receiving pharmaco-therapy alone. In contrast, for patients from low-impairment families, the addition of a family intervention did not improve course of illness.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings build on previous literature suggesting the importance of treatment matching within the mood disorders and suggest that the utility of adding family interventions for bipolar patients and their families may depend upon the family's level of impairment.