Childhood trauma is linked to adult depression and might be a risk factor for a more chronic course of depression. However, the link between childhood trauma and chronicity of depression has not been investigated using a large and representative sample in which other depression characteristics, such as severity, age at onset, and comorbid psychopathology, were taken into account. Baseline data, collected during 2004 through 2007, were drawn from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Participants had a current DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) and were recruited from the community, primary care settings, and specialized mental health care facilities (N = 1230). Relationships between both childhood trauma and childhood life events and chronicity of depression were examined using multiple logistic regression models. Chronicity of depression was defined as being depressed for 24 months or more in the past 4 years. Chronicity of depression was associated with a significantly higher prevalence of childhood trauma but was not associated with childhood life events. We found the strongest association for those with the highest score on a cumulative index summarizing frequency of childhood trauma (OR = 3.26; 95% CI = 1.86 to 5.72, p < .001). After controlling for comorbid anxiety disorders, severity of depressive symptoms, and age at onset of depression, we found that the association between childhood trauma index and chronicity of depression remained significant (OR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.13 to 3.73, p = .02). These results suggest that multiple childhood traumas can be seen as an independent determinant of chronicity of depression. For treatment of depressed patients, it is therefore important to detect the presence of childhood trauma.

Childhood abuse is a major public health problem that has been linked to depression in adulthood. Although different types of childhood abuse often co-occur, few studies have examined their unique impact on negative mental health outcomes. Most studies have focused solely on the consequences of childhood physical or sexual abuse; however, it has been suggested that childhood emotional abuse is more strongly related to depression. It remains unclear which underlying psychological processes mediate the effect of childhood emotional abuse on depressive symptoms. In a cross-sectional study in 276 female college students, multiple linear regression analyses were used to determine whether childhood emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse were independently associated with depressive symptoms, emotion dysregulation, and interpersonal problems. Subsequently, OLS regression analyses were used to determine whether emotion dysregulation and interpersonal problems mediate the relationship between childhood emotional abuse and depressive symptoms. Of all types of abuse, only emotional abuse was independently associated with depressive symptoms, emotion dysregulation, and interpersonal problems. The effect of childhood emotional abuse on depressive symptoms was mediated by emotion dysregulation and the following domains of interpersonal problems: cold/distant and domineering/controlling. The results of the current study indicate that detection and prevention of childhood emotional abuse deserves attention from Child Protective Services. Finally, interventions that target emotion regulation skills and interpersonal skills may be beneficial in prevention of depression.

Background: Anxiety and depressive disorders are prevalent in adolescents and young adults. However, most young people with mental health problems do not receive treatment. Computerized cognitive behavior therapy (cCBT) may provide an accessible alternative to face-to-face treatment, but the evidence base in young people is limited.Objective: The objective was to perform an up-to-date comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cCBT in treating anxiety and depression in adolescents and young adults compared with active treatment and passive controls. We aimed to examine posttreatment and follow-up effects and explore the moderators of treatment effects.Methods: We conducted systematic searches in the following six electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included randomized controlled trials comparing cCBT with any control group in adolescents or young adults (age 12-25 years) with anxiety or depressive symptoms. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, version 2.0. Overall quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Posttreatment means and SDs were compared between intervention and control groups, and pooled effect sizes (Hedges g) were calculated. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore whether age, guidance level, and adherence rate were associated with treatment outcome.Results: The search identified 7670 papers, of which 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most included studies (22/24) had a high risk of bias owing to self-report measures and/or inappropriate handling of missing data. Compared with passive controls, cCBT yielded small to medium posttreatment pooled effect sizes regarding depressive symptoms (g=0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.72, number needed to treat [NNT]=3.55) and anxiety symptoms (g=0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.65, NNT=4.10). cCBT yielded effects similar to those of active treatment controls regarding anxiety symptoms (g=0.04, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.31). For depressive symptoms, the nonsignificant pooled effect size favored active treatment controls (g=−0.70, 95% CI −1.51 to 0.11, P=.09), but heterogeneity was very high (I2=90.63%). No moderators of treatment effects were identified. At long-term follow-up, cCBT yielded a small pooled effect size regarding depressive symptoms compared with passive controls (g=0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.45, NNT=6.58). No other follow-up effects were found; however, power was limited owing to the small number of studies.Conclusions: cCBT is beneficial for reducing posttreatment anxiety and depressive symptoms in adolescents and young adults compared with passive controls. Compared with active treatment controls, cCBT yielded similar effects regarding anxiety symptoms. Regarding depressive symptoms, however, the results remain unclear. More high-quality research involving active controls and long-term follow-up assessments is needed in this population.Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019119725; https://tinyurl.com/y5acfgd9.

Background Although most depressive disorders are treated in primary care and several studies have examined the effects of psychological treatment in primary care, hardly any meta-analytic research has been conducted in which the results of these studies are integrated. Aim To integrate the results of randomised controlled trials of psychological treatment of depression in adults in primary care, and to compare these results to psychological treatments in other settings. Design of study A meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of psychological treatments of adult depression in primary care. Setting Primary care. Method An existing database of studies on psychological treatments of adult depression that was built on systematic searches in PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Dissertation Abstracts International was used. Randomised trials were included in which the effects of psychological treatments on adult primary care patients with depression were compared to a control condition. Results In the 15 included studies, the standardised mean effect size of psychological treatment versus control groups was 0.31 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.45), which corresponds with a numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) of 5.75. Studies in which patients were referred by their GP for treatment had significantly higher effect sizes (d = 0.43; NNT = 4.20) than studies in which patients were recruited through systematic screening (d = 0.13, not significantly different from zero; NNT = 13.51). Conclusions Although the number of studies was relatively low and the quality varied, psychological treatment of depression was found to be effective in primary care, especially when GPs refer patients with depression for treatment.

Effective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care. E-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to “blended” service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country). The E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment. France: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891 . Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866 . Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962 . Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660 . Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684 . Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447 . Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616 . Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725 . Registered on 20 March 2015.