Do Client Attributes Moderate the Effectiveness of a Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression in Addiction Treatment?

Published in: The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, v. 40, no. 1, Jan. 2013, p. 57-70

Posted on on January 01, 2012

by Sarah B. Hunter, Susan M. Paddock, Annie Jie Zhou, Katherine E. Watkins, Kimberly A. Hepner

Read More

Access further information on this document at The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The study goal was to determine whether client attributes were associated with outcomes from group cognitive behavioral therapy for depression (GCBT-D) as delivered in community-based addiction treatment settings. Data from 299 depressed residential clients assigned to receive either usual care (N?=?159) or usual care plus GCBT-D (N?=?140) were examined. Potential moderators included gender, race/ethnicity, education, referral status, and problem substance use. Study outcomes at 6 months post-baseline included changes in depressive symptoms, mental health functioning, negative consequences from substance use, and percentage of days abstinent. Initial examination indicated that non-Hispanic Whites had significantly better outcomes than other racial/ethnic groups on two of the four outcomes. After correcting for multiple testing, none of the examined client attributes moderated the treatment effect. GCBT-D appears effective; however, the magnitude and consistency of treatment effects indicate that it may be less helpful among members of racial/ethnic minority groups and is worthy of future study.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.