A demonstration of a multi-method variable selection approach for treatment selection: Recommending cognitive–behavioral versus psychodynamic therapy for mild to moderate adult depression

Zachary D. Cohen, Thomas T. Kim, Henricus L. Van, Jack J.M. Dekker, Ellen Driessen

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: We use a new variable selection procedure for treatment selection which generates treatment recommendations based on pre-treatment characteristics for adults with mild-to-moderate depression deciding between cognitive behavioral (CBT) versus psychodynamic therapy (PDT). Method: Data are drawn from a randomized comparison of CBT versus PDT for depression (N = 167, 71% female, mean-age = 39.6). The approach combines four different statistical techniques to identify patient characteristics associated consistently with differential treatment response. Variables are combined to generate predictions indicating each individual’s optimal-treatment. The average outcomes for patients who received their indicated treatment versus those who did not were compared retrospectively to estimate model utility. Results: Of 49 predictors examined, depression severity, anxiety sensitivity, extraversion, and psychological treatment-needs were included in the final model. The average post-treatment Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scale score was 1.6 points lower (95%CI = [0.5:2.8]; d = 0.21) for those who received their indicated-treatment compared to non-indicated. Among the 60% of patients with the strongest treatment recommendations, that advantage grew to 2.6 (95%CI = [1.4:3.7]; d = 0.37). Conclusions: Variable selection procedures differ in their characterization of the importance of predictive variables. Attending to consistently-indicated predictors may be sensible when constructing treatment selection models. The small N and lack of separate validation sample indicate a need for prospective tests before this model is used.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)137-150
Number of pages14
JournalPsychotherapy Research
Volume30
Issue number2
Early online date11 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Feb 2020

Fingerprint

Patient Selection
Depression
Therapeutics
Anxiety
Psychology

Keywords

  • cognitive behavioral therapy
  • depression
  • precision medicine
  • psychodynamic therapy
  • treatment selection
  • variable selection

Cite this

@article{f0af4c43da384273b1a947c423f25c62,
title = "A demonstration of a multi-method variable selection approach for treatment selection: Recommending cognitive–behavioral versus psychodynamic therapy for mild to moderate adult depression",
abstract = "Objective: We use a new variable selection procedure for treatment selection which generates treatment recommendations based on pre-treatment characteristics for adults with mild-to-moderate depression deciding between cognitive behavioral (CBT) versus psychodynamic therapy (PDT). Method: Data are drawn from a randomized comparison of CBT versus PDT for depression (N = 167, 71{\%} female, mean-age = 39.6). The approach combines four different statistical techniques to identify patient characteristics associated consistently with differential treatment response. Variables are combined to generate predictions indicating each individual’s optimal-treatment. The average outcomes for patients who received their indicated treatment versus those who did not were compared retrospectively to estimate model utility. Results: Of 49 predictors examined, depression severity, anxiety sensitivity, extraversion, and psychological treatment-needs were included in the final model. The average post-treatment Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scale score was 1.6 points lower (95{\%}CI = [0.5:2.8]; d = 0.21) for those who received their indicated-treatment compared to non-indicated. Among the 60{\%} of patients with the strongest treatment recommendations, that advantage grew to 2.6 (95{\%}CI = [1.4:3.7]; d = 0.37). Conclusions: Variable selection procedures differ in their characterization of the importance of predictive variables. Attending to consistently-indicated predictors may be sensible when constructing treatment selection models. The small N and lack of separate validation sample indicate a need for prospective tests before this model is used.",
keywords = "cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, precision medicine, psychodynamic therapy, treatment selection, variable selection",
author = "Cohen, {Zachary D.} and Kim, {Thomas T.} and Van, {Henricus L.} and Dekker, {Jack J.M.} and Ellen Driessen",
year = "2020",
month = "2",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1080/10503307.2018.1563312",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "137--150",
journal = "Psychotherapy Research",
issn = "1050-3307",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

A demonstration of a multi-method variable selection approach for treatment selection : Recommending cognitive–behavioral versus psychodynamic therapy for mild to moderate adult depression. / Cohen, Zachary D.; Kim, Thomas T.; Van, Henricus L.; Dekker, Jack J.M.; Driessen, Ellen.

In: Psychotherapy Research, Vol. 30, No. 2, 17.02.2020, p. 137-150.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A demonstration of a multi-method variable selection approach for treatment selection

T2 - Recommending cognitive–behavioral versus psychodynamic therapy for mild to moderate adult depression

AU - Cohen, Zachary D.

AU - Kim, Thomas T.

AU - Van, Henricus L.

AU - Dekker, Jack J.M.

AU - Driessen, Ellen

PY - 2020/2/17

Y1 - 2020/2/17

N2 - Objective: We use a new variable selection procedure for treatment selection which generates treatment recommendations based on pre-treatment characteristics for adults with mild-to-moderate depression deciding between cognitive behavioral (CBT) versus psychodynamic therapy (PDT). Method: Data are drawn from a randomized comparison of CBT versus PDT for depression (N = 167, 71% female, mean-age = 39.6). The approach combines four different statistical techniques to identify patient characteristics associated consistently with differential treatment response. Variables are combined to generate predictions indicating each individual’s optimal-treatment. The average outcomes for patients who received their indicated treatment versus those who did not were compared retrospectively to estimate model utility. Results: Of 49 predictors examined, depression severity, anxiety sensitivity, extraversion, and psychological treatment-needs were included in the final model. The average post-treatment Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scale score was 1.6 points lower (95%CI = [0.5:2.8]; d = 0.21) for those who received their indicated-treatment compared to non-indicated. Among the 60% of patients with the strongest treatment recommendations, that advantage grew to 2.6 (95%CI = [1.4:3.7]; d = 0.37). Conclusions: Variable selection procedures differ in their characterization of the importance of predictive variables. Attending to consistently-indicated predictors may be sensible when constructing treatment selection models. The small N and lack of separate validation sample indicate a need for prospective tests before this model is used.

AB - Objective: We use a new variable selection procedure for treatment selection which generates treatment recommendations based on pre-treatment characteristics for adults with mild-to-moderate depression deciding between cognitive behavioral (CBT) versus psychodynamic therapy (PDT). Method: Data are drawn from a randomized comparison of CBT versus PDT for depression (N = 167, 71% female, mean-age = 39.6). The approach combines four different statistical techniques to identify patient characteristics associated consistently with differential treatment response. Variables are combined to generate predictions indicating each individual’s optimal-treatment. The average outcomes for patients who received their indicated treatment versus those who did not were compared retrospectively to estimate model utility. Results: Of 49 predictors examined, depression severity, anxiety sensitivity, extraversion, and psychological treatment-needs were included in the final model. The average post-treatment Hamilton-Depression-Rating-Scale score was 1.6 points lower (95%CI = [0.5:2.8]; d = 0.21) for those who received their indicated-treatment compared to non-indicated. Among the 60% of patients with the strongest treatment recommendations, that advantage grew to 2.6 (95%CI = [1.4:3.7]; d = 0.37). Conclusions: Variable selection procedures differ in their characterization of the importance of predictive variables. Attending to consistently-indicated predictors may be sensible when constructing treatment selection models. The small N and lack of separate validation sample indicate a need for prospective tests before this model is used.

KW - cognitive behavioral therapy

KW - depression

KW - precision medicine

KW - psychodynamic therapy

KW - treatment selection

KW - variable selection

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060014240&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060014240&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10503307.2018.1563312

DO - 10.1080/10503307.2018.1563312

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 137

EP - 150

JO - Psychotherapy Research

JF - Psychotherapy Research

SN - 1050-3307

IS - 2

ER -