Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSugg, H
dc.contributor.authorFrost, J
dc.contributor.authorRichards, D
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-21T15:07:18Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-08
dc.description.abstractBackground Current quantitative methods for personalising psychotherapies for depression are unlikely to be able to inform clinical decision-making for hundreds of years. Novel alternative methods to generate hypotheses for prospective testing are therefore required, and we showcase mixed methods as one such approach. By exploring patients’ perspectives in-depth, and integrating qualitative and quantitative data at the level of the individual, we may identify new potential psychosocial predictors of psychotherapy outcomes, potentially informing the personalisation of depression treatment in a shorter timeframe. Using Morita Therapy (a Japanese psychotherapy) as an exemplar, we thus explored how Morita Therapy recipients’ views on treatment acceptability explain their adherence and response to treatment. Methods The Morita Trial incorporated a pilot randomised controlled trial of Morita Therapy versus treatment as usual for depression, and post-treatment qualitative interviews. We recruited trial participants from General Practice record searches in Devon, UK, and purposively sampled data from 16 participants for our mixed methods analysis. We developed typologies of participants’ views from our qualitative themes, and integrated these with quantitative data on number of sessions attended and whether participants responded to treatment in a joint typologies and statistics display. We enriched our analysis using participant vignettes to demonstrate each typology. Results We demonstrate that (1) participants who could identify with the principles of Morita Therapy typically responded to treatment, regardless of how many sessions they attended, whilst those whose orientation towards treatment was incompatible with Morita Therapy did not respond to treatment, again regardless of treatment adherence; (2) participants whose personal circumstances impeded their opportunity to engage in Morita Therapy attended the fewest sessions, though still benefitted from treatment if the principles resonated with them. Conclusions We identified new potential relationships between ‘orientation’ and outcomes, and ‘opportunity’ and adherence, which could not have been identified using existing non-integrative methods. This mixed methods approach warrants replication in future trials and with other psychotherapies to generate hypotheses, based on typologies (or profiles) of patients for whom a treatment is more or less likely to be suitable, to be tested in prospective trials.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipUniversity of Exeteren_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 21, article 41en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13063-019-3788-3
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/39691
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherBMCen_GB
dc.rights© The Author(s) 2020. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
dc.subjectPersonalised treatmenten_GB
dc.subjectprecision medicineen_GB
dc.subjectmixed methodsen_GB
dc.subjectmental healthen_GB
dc.subjectpsychotherapyen_GB
dc.subjectMorita Therapyen_GB
dc.subjectdepressionen_GB
dc.subjectpredictorsen_GB
dc.titlePersonalising psychotherapies for depression using a novel mixed methods approach: An example from Morita Therapyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-11-21T15:07:18Z
dc.identifier.issn1745-6215
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from BMC via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalTrialsen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-10-05
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-10-05
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-11-20T11:15:00Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2020-02-17T15:29:24Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© The Author(s) 2020. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2020. Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.