Skip to content

Materials used to support cognitive behavioural therapy for depression: a survey of therapists’ clinical practice and views

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages20
JournalCognitive Behaviour Therapy
Early online date3 Dec 2018
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 25 Oct 2018
DateE-pub ahead of print (current) - 3 Dec 2018

Abstract

Use of supporting materials in cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is widely advocated, and homework increases effectiveness. The study aimed to identify materials most frequently used by CBT therapists to support CBT for depression, and those perceived most clinically effective. Questionnaires were sent to 3665 accredited CBT therapists asking about their use of resources commonly described in CBT manuals, and their views on effectiveness. Of 3665 approached by post/email, 994 (27%) responded. Another 33 completed the questionnaire via the study website. 818/1027 (80%) of respondents were accredited practitioners who deliver one-to-one therapy. Symptom measures, lists of problems/goals, activity schedules, behavioural activation diaries/plans, and case formulation worksheets were used “frequently” or “very frequently” by over 85% of respondents. Sleep diaries and computerised CBT were used least. Most resources were used within and between sessions. Activity schedules, behavioural activation diaries/plans, case formulation worksheets, thought records, and resources to support identification of conditional beliefs were regarded as most effective. Symptom measures, sleep diaries and computerised/online materials were considered only moderately effective. Therapists use a wide range of materials to support individual CBT. Technology-enabled approaches to delivering CBT should incorporate a range of materials to enable therapists to tailor treatment effectively.

    Research areas

  • Cognitive behavioural therapy, individual CBT, Depression, treatment components, attitudes, Clinical practice, CBT

Documents

Documents

  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the author accepted manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Taylore & Francis at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16506073.2018.1541927 . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 987 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 3/12/19

    Request copy

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups