We all try and avoid stress if we can. But sometimes Stress is unavoidable, especially if the stress is just the waiting.
Researchers recently found that not knowing your diagnosis is a very serious stressor - and can be worse (in terms of stress) than knowing you have a serious illness!
In this study 214 women scheduled to undergo different diagnostic and treatment procedures ahd their stress levels checked. About half were awaiting breast biopsy to check a suspicious lump in their chest, whilst the others were undergoing treatment for cancer or uterine myoma or benign fibroids.
Breast biopsy patients reported significantly higher levels of anxiety/stress, compared to the group undergoing treatment.
The researcher running the study, Dr Lang, said: "These results really drive the point home that the distress of not knowing your diagnosis is serious." It seems that the emotional and psychological effect is far worse when you don't know what the problem is, compared to knowing about a serious illness under treatment.
Similar results were found in a 2008 study by Jacob Hirsh and Michael Inzlicht. They found that, with neurotic individuals, participants experienced immediate and uncomfortable response to uncertainty, even more so than when they are faced with clear negative information.
“Uncertainty can be very stressful,” said Hirsh.
So enough of umm-ing and ahh-ing, whoever you are! People need to know one way or another, because to not know is just stressful!
Article 1
Article 2
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Monday, 29 November 2010
Gambling away your health..
Although just a correlation, a recent study has found that Pathological Gamblers are at risk of Mental Health Disorders - they are 3 times more likely to commit suicisde than non-gamblers.
"..Pathological gamblers account for five percent of all suicides. These staggering statistics motivated us to study the difference between gamblers and non-gamblers," says study co-author, Richard Boyer.
The study examined 122 suicides between 2006 and 2009 and found that 49 (40%) were pathological gamblers.
Those committing suicide were found to be twice as likely to be suffering from Specific Mental Disorders than other suicide cases, suggesting that the personality disorder is a significant flag towards increased suicide risk.
Boyer reported that there are three elements generally recognised: depression, alcohol or drug consumption and a personality disorder. They believed that it was the interaction between these problems that led ultimately to suicide.
But they didn't stop there. The study also found that gamblers who committed suicide were three times less likely to have seen the doctor the year preceding their death.
Boyer believes this is because they see their financial or alcohol/drug problems as a result of their gambling addiciton and seek help for that rather than get help for their other issues.
Do you know anybody in your life with a gambling problem? It could affect anybody! Just keep an eye out for the warning signs and remember that gambling may not be their only problem!
Link to Article
"..Pathological gamblers account for five percent of all suicides. These staggering statistics motivated us to study the difference between gamblers and non-gamblers," says study co-author, Richard Boyer.
The study examined 122 suicides between 2006 and 2009 and found that 49 (40%) were pathological gamblers.
Those committing suicide were found to be twice as likely to be suffering from Specific Mental Disorders than other suicide cases, suggesting that the personality disorder is a significant flag towards increased suicide risk.
Boyer reported that there are three elements generally recognised: depression, alcohol or drug consumption and a personality disorder. They believed that it was the interaction between these problems that led ultimately to suicide.
But they didn't stop there. The study also found that gamblers who committed suicide were three times less likely to have seen the doctor the year preceding their death.
Boyer believes this is because they see their financial or alcohol/drug problems as a result of their gambling addiciton and seek help for that rather than get help for their other issues.
Do you know anybody in your life with a gambling problem? It could affect anybody! Just keep an eye out for the warning signs and remember that gambling may not be their only problem!
Link to Article
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Men (and women) Behaving Badly
In two recent studies at University of Toronto Scarborough, researchers tested people's willingness to behave badly.
"People are more likely to cheat and make immoral decisions when their transgressions don't involve an explicit action," says Rimma Teper, lead author on the study, "If they can lie by omission, cheat without doing much legwork, or bypass a person's request for help without expressly denying them, they are much more likely to do so."
In the first study, two groups of participants took a test on a computer. Group 1 were told if they pressed the space bar that the answer would appear on the screen. Group 2 were told the answer would appear if they didn't press the enter key within five seconds of the question.
They found that those who didn't have to actively do anything to see the answer, they were more likely to cheat.
In the second study, participants were asked if they would volunteer to help a student with a learning disability to complete part of the test. Group 1 had only the option of checking a 'yes' or 'no' box on the computer. Group 2 could follow a link at the bottom of the page to volunteer their help or press 'continue' to move on to the next page.
They found participants were more likely to volunteer when they had to pick either 'yes' or 'no.' They concluded that it is difficult for people to explicitly deny help to others and this was linked to emotion, proably either guilt or shame. Those that didn't have to explicitly make a 'yes/no' choice wouldn't feel these emotions as strongly so it didn't affect their decision making, meaning they were more likely to make the immoral choice.
It also has critical implications for those in the business of soliciting peoples' good will, money or time.
Link to Article
"People are more likely to cheat and make immoral decisions when their transgressions don't involve an explicit action," says Rimma Teper, lead author on the study, "If they can lie by omission, cheat without doing much legwork, or bypass a person's request for help without expressly denying them, they are much more likely to do so."
In the first study, two groups of participants took a test on a computer. Group 1 were told if they pressed the space bar that the answer would appear on the screen. Group 2 were told the answer would appear if they didn't press the enter key within five seconds of the question.
They found that those who didn't have to actively do anything to see the answer, they were more likely to cheat.
In the second study, participants were asked if they would volunteer to help a student with a learning disability to complete part of the test. Group 1 had only the option of checking a 'yes' or 'no' box on the computer. Group 2 could follow a link at the bottom of the page to volunteer their help or press 'continue' to move on to the next page.
They found participants were more likely to volunteer when they had to pick either 'yes' or 'no.' They concluded that it is difficult for people to explicitly deny help to others and this was linked to emotion, proably either guilt or shame. Those that didn't have to explicitly make a 'yes/no' choice wouldn't feel these emotions as strongly so it didn't affect their decision making, meaning they were more likely to make the immoral choice.
It also has critical implications for those in the business of soliciting peoples' good will, money or time.
Link to Article
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Falling in Love and its Cognitive Effect
A new study has found that falling in love generates the same feeling as cocaine use and affects the intellectual areas of the brain!
Results showed that 12 areas of the brain work together to release euphoria-inducing chemicals icluding dopamine and adrenaline.
This also affects mental representation, metaphors and body image.
Other researchers also found blood levels of nerve growth factor were significantly higher in couples who had just fallen in love.
"The findings have major implications for neuroscience and mental health research because when love doesn't work out, it can be a significant cause of emotional stress and depression."
"It's another probe into the brain and into the mind of a patient," says Ortigue. "By understanding why they fall in love and why they are so heartbroken, they can use new therapies." By identifying the parts of the brain stimulated by love, doctors and therapists can better understand the pains of love-sick patients.
So, don't fall into drug use! Fall in love instead!
Link to Article
Results showed that 12 areas of the brain work together to release euphoria-inducing chemicals icluding dopamine and adrenaline.
This also affects mental representation, metaphors and body image.
Other researchers also found blood levels of nerve growth factor were significantly higher in couples who had just fallen in love.
"The findings have major implications for neuroscience and mental health research because when love doesn't work out, it can be a significant cause of emotional stress and depression."
"It's another probe into the brain and into the mind of a patient," says Ortigue. "By understanding why they fall in love and why they are so heartbroken, they can use new therapies." By identifying the parts of the brain stimulated by love, doctors and therapists can better understand the pains of love-sick patients.
So, don't fall into drug use! Fall in love instead!
Link to Article
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Marijuana use and its cognitive effects
Although recent papers have been released suggesting that it is Alcohol and not Marijuana that is the most harmful drug, this study by Staci Gruber highlights the risks that are still present in long term, young-starting marijuana use.
Cognitive flexibility - the ability to switch behavioural responses according to feedback from your surroundings, was found to be highly affected after long-term marijuana use.
Using a Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, the participants are shown four cards that differ in color, symbol, and value. The participants are asked to sort the cards, but not told what the rules are, leaving them to work out what the rules must be when receiving 'correct' or 'incorrect' feedback. Half way through the rules are changed and the participant must change their behaviour accordingly. This is an indicator of how strong a participant's cognitive flexibility is.
But what did they find?
Habitual marijuana users made more repeated errors than those that started after 16 and who did not habitually use marijuana and also had difficulty maintaining rules once they were set.
I guess it's not particularly new, and kind of obvious - but the study concluded that the younger you start, and the more you use, the greater effect Marijuana has on your cognitive functioning.
Those that claim Marijuana has no long term on them be warned! You may be killing your brain without even knowing it!
Link to Article
Cognitive flexibility - the ability to switch behavioural responses according to feedback from your surroundings, was found to be highly affected after long-term marijuana use.
Using a Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, the participants are shown four cards that differ in color, symbol, and value. The participants are asked to sort the cards, but not told what the rules are, leaving them to work out what the rules must be when receiving 'correct' or 'incorrect' feedback. Half way through the rules are changed and the participant must change their behaviour accordingly. This is an indicator of how strong a participant's cognitive flexibility is.
But what did they find?
Habitual marijuana users made more repeated errors than those that started after 16 and who did not habitually use marijuana and also had difficulty maintaining rules once they were set.
I guess it's not particularly new, and kind of obvious - but the study concluded that the younger you start, and the more you use, the greater effect Marijuana has on your cognitive functioning.
Those that claim Marijuana has no long term on them be warned! You may be killing your brain without even knowing it!
Link to Article
Monday, 15 November 2010
2 Articles into Obesity
Two interesting articles caught my eye this week on the Subject of Obesity.
1. Researchers confirmed that Obesity and Overeating are directly linked to excessive activity in a specific gene found in the human body.
You can't argue with a headline like that! It immediately grabbed my attention.
In this study the researchers bred mice with a particular gene that was identified in 2007 amongst heavier human subjects, which they believed could be the 'fat' gene. In the recent study they found that the mice with overactivity in this gene, "although healthy, ate more and became fatter than normal mice."
I argue that I wouldn't say these mice (nor people with this gene) are 'genetically' obese, they just eat more. Although their body may be telling them that they are hungry, when perhaps they are not, they don't have to eat and therefore put on weight.
Still, regardless of what people can conclude, it was an interesting study.
2. Lose weight by eating junk food?
A researcher recently proved that this IS possible. How? Just don't overeat!
Mark Haub, nutrition professor, believed that "It's all about how much you eat, not what you eat."
He tested the theory on himself, only eating a maximum of 1800 calories today (down from the usual 2600) and he ate only food that you would typically found in vending machines.
After 2 months of his experiment, his weight dropped to 174 pounds, and his BMI dropped to a healthy 24.9. The experiment even improved his other health statistics!
I wouldn't recommend this diet, and nor did he, but it is interesting how this actually seems, in a roundabout way, to back up the first article.
Although some may have this overactive gene, in the end it really does seem to be the quantity of what you eat that determines your weight. As Mark Haub showed, quantity makes a large difference, and quality seems to take a step back. The mice study shows that an veractive gene is merely causing people to eat more, increasing their weight.
To me, this evidence shows very clearly that it is nurture that alters our weight and nature is sitting the fight of Obesity out.
Article 1: Mice
Article 2: Mark Haub
1. Researchers confirmed that Obesity and Overeating are directly linked to excessive activity in a specific gene found in the human body.
You can't argue with a headline like that! It immediately grabbed my attention.
In this study the researchers bred mice with a particular gene that was identified in 2007 amongst heavier human subjects, which they believed could be the 'fat' gene. In the recent study they found that the mice with overactivity in this gene, "although healthy, ate more and became fatter than normal mice."
I argue that I wouldn't say these mice (nor people with this gene) are 'genetically' obese, they just eat more. Although their body may be telling them that they are hungry, when perhaps they are not, they don't have to eat and therefore put on weight.
Still, regardless of what people can conclude, it was an interesting study.
2. Lose weight by eating junk food?
A researcher recently proved that this IS possible. How? Just don't overeat!
Mark Haub, nutrition professor, believed that "It's all about how much you eat, not what you eat."
He tested the theory on himself, only eating a maximum of 1800 calories today (down from the usual 2600) and he ate only food that you would typically found in vending machines.
After 2 months of his experiment, his weight dropped to 174 pounds, and his BMI dropped to a healthy 24.9. The experiment even improved his other health statistics!
I wouldn't recommend this diet, and nor did he, but it is interesting how this actually seems, in a roundabout way, to back up the first article.
Although some may have this overactive gene, in the end it really does seem to be the quantity of what you eat that determines your weight. As Mark Haub showed, quantity makes a large difference, and quality seems to take a step back. The mice study shows that an veractive gene is merely causing people to eat more, increasing their weight.
To me, this evidence shows very clearly that it is nurture that alters our weight and nature is sitting the fight of Obesity out.
Article 1: Mice
Article 2: Mark Haub
Friday, 12 November 2010
Get Rhythm When You Get The Blues
Genes that regulate circadian rhythm were examined in people with and without a history of depression and found that those with a history of depression had a higher level of activity in this gene.
Higher expression levels of this gene could affect sleep patterns and other physiological functions governed by circadian rhythm - this is highly interesting as Sleep disturbance is a common symptom of depression.
This is only a link, it cannot be inferred either way whether the gene difference is the cause or the effect of depression but it does advance what we know about depression and brain structures that seem to indicate it.
In terms of advances in treatment, those with depressions and this genetic profile may benefit most from sleep-related treatments: Light therapy or a antidepressants that act on melatonin (a sleep regulatory hormone.)
Link to Article
Higher expression levels of this gene could affect sleep patterns and other physiological functions governed by circadian rhythm - this is highly interesting as Sleep disturbance is a common symptom of depression.
This is only a link, it cannot be inferred either way whether the gene difference is the cause or the effect of depression but it does advance what we know about depression and brain structures that seem to indicate it.
In terms of advances in treatment, those with depressions and this genetic profile may benefit most from sleep-related treatments: Light therapy or a antidepressants that act on melatonin (a sleep regulatory hormone.)
Link to Article
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
Does Adolescent Stress Lead to Mood Disorders in Adulthood?
As depression in young people is increasing in successive generations, we have to wonder what is the cause for this increase? With people suffering earlier in life is stress the problem?
Researcher Mark Ellenbogen is particularly interested in the link between childhood stress and the development of depression.
"Previous studies have shown that kids from at-risk families are at higher risk of having a psychiatric disorder in their lifetime," says Ellenbogen. "We know that they're not just inheriting these traits but they are also being raised in environment that is stressful, chaotic and lacking in structure. Our goal is to tease out how this type of environment influences these children's mental health in adolescence and adulthood."
Ellenbogen's findings have shown that the adolescents of "at-risk" families have higher stress levels than kids from families without disorders, which continues into adulthood.
Ellenbogen says, "We have not yet confirmed that these children then go on to develop mood disorders of their own. However, we have some exciting preliminary data showing that high [stress levels] in adolescence doubles your risk for developing a serious mood disorder in young adulthood."
Although this study focuses on the home life of children generating stress, if stress in childhood can indeed lead to the increase in mood disorders then perhaps stress through examinations, competition or homework (for some individuals) could also lead to mood disorders later in life?
Clearly, Ellenbogen is planning further study, so once there is evidence that's slightly more concrete, perhaps we will be able to say better the link between childhood stress and mood disorders in adulthood
Link to Article
Researcher Mark Ellenbogen is particularly interested in the link between childhood stress and the development of depression.
"Previous studies have shown that kids from at-risk families are at higher risk of having a psychiatric disorder in their lifetime," says Ellenbogen. "We know that they're not just inheriting these traits but they are also being raised in environment that is stressful, chaotic and lacking in structure. Our goal is to tease out how this type of environment influences these children's mental health in adolescence and adulthood."
Ellenbogen's findings have shown that the adolescents of "at-risk" families have higher stress levels than kids from families without disorders, which continues into adulthood.
Ellenbogen says, "We have not yet confirmed that these children then go on to develop mood disorders of their own. However, we have some exciting preliminary data showing that high [stress levels] in adolescence doubles your risk for developing a serious mood disorder in young adulthood."
Although this study focuses on the home life of children generating stress, if stress in childhood can indeed lead to the increase in mood disorders then perhaps stress through examinations, competition or homework (for some individuals) could also lead to mood disorders later in life?
Clearly, Ellenbogen is planning further study, so once there is evidence that's slightly more concrete, perhaps we will be able to say better the link between childhood stress and mood disorders in adulthood
Link to Article
Monday, 8 November 2010
Seeing Meat Makes People Less Aggressive
According to new research seeing meat appears to make human beings significantly less aggressive.
Odd!
Researcher Frank Kachanoff says:
"I was inspired by research on priming and aggression, that has shown that just looking at an object which is learned to be associated with aggression, such as a gun, can make someone more likely to behave aggressively. I wanted to know if we might respond aggressively to certain stimuli in our environment not because of learned associations, but because of an innate predisposition. I wanted to know if just looking at the meat would suffice to provoke an aggressive behavior."
Kachanoff believed that humans may have evolved a predisposition to respond aggressively towards seeing meat. In the experiment, participats had to punish a script reader every time he made an error while sorting photos. Some photos were of meat whilst others were neutral.
Kachanoff believed that the use of 'ready to eat' meat images may have been the problem as when our ancestors were eating they would have been with friends/family and thus calm. He is interested in trying again using 'hunting' images instead, and expects to find different results.
Kachanoff's research is important because it looks at ways society may influence environmental factors to decrease the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Perhaps more pictures of food around would lead us all to be calmer!
Link to Article
Odd!
Researcher Frank Kachanoff says:
"I was inspired by research on priming and aggression, that has shown that just looking at an object which is learned to be associated with aggression, such as a gun, can make someone more likely to behave aggressively. I wanted to know if we might respond aggressively to certain stimuli in our environment not because of learned associations, but because of an innate predisposition. I wanted to know if just looking at the meat would suffice to provoke an aggressive behavior."
Kachanoff believed that humans may have evolved a predisposition to respond aggressively towards seeing meat. In the experiment, participats had to punish a script reader every time he made an error while sorting photos. Some photos were of meat whilst others were neutral.
Kachanoff believed that the use of 'ready to eat' meat images may have been the problem as when our ancestors were eating they would have been with friends/family and thus calm. He is interested in trying again using 'hunting' images instead, and expects to find different results.
Kachanoff's research is important because it looks at ways society may influence environmental factors to decrease the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Perhaps more pictures of food around would lead us all to be calmer!
Link to Article
Friday, 5 November 2010
Alcohol: More harmful than Heroin or Cocaine?
Alcohol, although one of the only legal 'recreational drugs' available to the public, has been seen in a new light recently with the publishing of a paper by Professor David Nutt.
A new system that ranks drugs on the basis of harm caused to both the user and others has placed alcohol as the most harmful drug - this is above even heroin and crack!
Professor Nutt attempted this assessment in 2007, which provoked major interest and public debate, although it raised concerns about the choice of the nine criteria and the absence of any differential weighting of them.
Drugs were scored with points out of 100, with 100 assigned to the most harmful drug on a specific criterion. Zero indicated no harm. Explaining their model, the authors say: "In scaling of the drugs, care is needed to ensure that each successive point on the scale represents equal increments of harm. Thus, if a drug is scored at 50, then it should be half as harmful as the drug that scored 100."
The nine categories in harm to self are:
- Drug-specific mortality
- Drug-related mortality
- Drug-specific damage
- Drug-related damage
- Dependence
- Drug-specific impairment of mental function
- Drug-related impairment of mental functioning
- Loss of tangibles
- Loss of relationships
- Injury.
The harm to others categories are:
- Crime
- Environmental damage
- Family conflict
- International damage
- Economic cost
- Decline in community cohesion.
Heroin, crack, and crystal meth were the most harmful drugs to the individual.
Alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others.
This system showed alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), then heroin (55) then crack (54.)
The implications this study could have on drugs policy is potentially huge. But one ahs to question, with such a large number of people drinking alcohol opposed to, say, taking heroin - has this made a difference to their results? Surely there are more people that enjoy alcohol with relatively little harm than those taking heroin or cocain?
However accurate/valid the study, it cannot be denied that it has and will cause much controversy. It will be interesting to see if future studies find similar results.
What are your opinions?
Is alcohol more harmful than heroin or cocaine?
Link to Article
Link to Paper
A new system that ranks drugs on the basis of harm caused to both the user and others has placed alcohol as the most harmful drug - this is above even heroin and crack!
Professor Nutt attempted this assessment in 2007, which provoked major interest and public debate, although it raised concerns about the choice of the nine criteria and the absence of any differential weighting of them.
Drugs were scored with points out of 100, with 100 assigned to the most harmful drug on a specific criterion. Zero indicated no harm. Explaining their model, the authors say: "In scaling of the drugs, care is needed to ensure that each successive point on the scale represents equal increments of harm. Thus, if a drug is scored at 50, then it should be half as harmful as the drug that scored 100."
The nine categories in harm to self are:
- Drug-specific mortality
- Drug-related mortality
- Drug-specific damage
- Drug-related damage
- Dependence
- Drug-specific impairment of mental function
- Drug-related impairment of mental functioning
- Loss of tangibles
- Loss of relationships
- Injury.
The harm to others categories are:
- Crime
- Environmental damage
- Family conflict
- International damage
- Economic cost
- Decline in community cohesion.
Heroin, crack, and crystal meth were the most harmful drugs to the individual.
Alcohol, heroin, and crack were the most harmful to others.
This system showed alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), then heroin (55) then crack (54.)
The implications this study could have on drugs policy is potentially huge. But one ahs to question, with such a large number of people drinking alcohol opposed to, say, taking heroin - has this made a difference to their results? Surely there are more people that enjoy alcohol with relatively little harm than those taking heroin or cocain?
However accurate/valid the study, it cannot be denied that it has and will cause much controversy. It will be interesting to see if future studies find similar results.
What are your opinions?
Is alcohol more harmful than heroin or cocaine?
Link to Article
Link to Paper
Thursday, 4 November 2010
How anger makes you want things more
Researchers found that associating an object with anger actually makes people want the object.
For the study participants watched a computer screen while images of common objects, like a mug or a pen, appeared on the screen. What they didn't realize was that immediately before each object appeared, the screen flashed either a neutral face, an angry face, or a fearful face. This subliminal image tied an emotion to each object. At the end of the experiment, the participants were asked how much they wanted each object. In a second version of the experiment, they had the person squeeze a handgrip to get the desired object -- those who squeezed harder were more likely to win it. People put more effort in action to obtain objects associated with angry faces.
When participants were asked why they worked harder to get it, they said, 'It's just because I like it.' That shows how little we know about our own motivations."
The study above into motivation shows how even emotions that we would usually consider to be undesirable and negative can actually be a driving force behind getting what we want - possibly without ever knowing that's the reason.
Think back to school, there would always but that smug class-mate that thought they were the best at everything. How much did they annoy you? (Or maybe they were you?) Didn't you want to beat this person at whatever you could, not necessarily because you wanted to win, and if there wasn't this rival perhaps you wouldn't even bother, but because of your anger you strive to achieve.
Maybe schools or universities or even jobs use this competition to their advantage? or maybe 'Angry-Advertising' could be the tv-commercials of the future!
Link to Article
For the study participants watched a computer screen while images of common objects, like a mug or a pen, appeared on the screen. What they didn't realize was that immediately before each object appeared, the screen flashed either a neutral face, an angry face, or a fearful face. This subliminal image tied an emotion to each object. At the end of the experiment, the participants were asked how much they wanted each object. In a second version of the experiment, they had the person squeeze a handgrip to get the desired object -- those who squeezed harder were more likely to win it. People put more effort in action to obtain objects associated with angry faces.
When participants were asked why they worked harder to get it, they said, 'It's just because I like it.' That shows how little we know about our own motivations."
The study above into motivation shows how even emotions that we would usually consider to be undesirable and negative can actually be a driving force behind getting what we want - possibly without ever knowing that's the reason.
Think back to school, there would always but that smug class-mate that thought they were the best at everything. How much did they annoy you? (Or maybe they were you?) Didn't you want to beat this person at whatever you could, not necessarily because you wanted to win, and if there wasn't this rival perhaps you wouldn't even bother, but because of your anger you strive to achieve.
Maybe schools or universities or even jobs use this competition to their advantage? or maybe 'Angry-Advertising' could be the tv-commercials of the future!
Link to Article
Tuesday, 2 November 2010
Depression and the Percentage of Relapse
"A study of adolescents who had a major depressive disorder found that nearly all recovered from their episode after treatment. But within five years, nearly half of them had relapsed, and females were at much higher risk of another major episode, researchers at Duke University Medical Center found."
"After the initial 12-week treatment, the subjects were then followed for five years. They found that 96.4% of the participants had recovered for at least 8 weeks after short-term treatment. Those who responded to the short-term treatment rather than partially or not at all were significantly more likely to recover by the two-year follow-up mark. The most effective treatment was a combination of the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) with CBT."
"Reaching recovery within two years was not significantly related to being in the group that received the combination therapy. Instead, it mattered whether the patients responded to treatment, as opposed to being partial responders or nonresponders."
"Of the 189 patients who recovered, 88 of them had a recurrence of major depression. Recurrence couldn't be predicted by the child's full short-term treatment response or by original treatment. Gender played a significant role in recurrence, with a majority of females (57.6 percent) having another major depression versus just 32.9% of males."
This study may be confirming what we already know, that those who recover from depression are likely to relapse, but what is interesting about it is the overwhelming percentage of relapse and the gender difference as well. Transtheoretical models such as John Norcross' stages of change wouldn't see relapse as a problem however, more of an expected, and possibly necessary part of change. More study in this area in the future may prove even more fruitful and maybe go on to explain even further the reasons behind the relapse and gender differences.
Link to article
"After the initial 12-week treatment, the subjects were then followed for five years. They found that 96.4% of the participants had recovered for at least 8 weeks after short-term treatment. Those who responded to the short-term treatment rather than partially or not at all were significantly more likely to recover by the two-year follow-up mark. The most effective treatment was a combination of the antidepressant fluoxetine (Prozac) with CBT."
"Reaching recovery within two years was not significantly related to being in the group that received the combination therapy. Instead, it mattered whether the patients responded to treatment, as opposed to being partial responders or nonresponders."
"Of the 189 patients who recovered, 88 of them had a recurrence of major depression. Recurrence couldn't be predicted by the child's full short-term treatment response or by original treatment. Gender played a significant role in recurrence, with a majority of females (57.6 percent) having another major depression versus just 32.9% of males."
This study may be confirming what we already know, that those who recover from depression are likely to relapse, but what is interesting about it is the overwhelming percentage of relapse and the gender difference as well. Transtheoretical models such as John Norcross' stages of change wouldn't see relapse as a problem however, more of an expected, and possibly necessary part of change. More study in this area in the future may prove even more fruitful and maybe go on to explain even further the reasons behind the relapse and gender differences.
Link to article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
