3 ms·
Tenured professor of psychiatry here. I'll give you the summary of research on depression: 1. Emotional state is like blood pressure. It's a continuously varyi
by ekwelio399 9y ago
Tenured professor of psychiatry here. I'll give you the summary of research on depression:
1. Emotional state is like blood pressure. It's a continuously varying thing. There is no discrete depressive disease state, just an extreme end of a continuum.
2. Just like blood pressure, though, very high blood pressure (or low) represents an illness state, a potentially very serious one. The etiology is a different matter. It may be due to sociocultural processes, or existential threat, or genetics, or neurological insults, or all of the above, each in some measure.
3. When we talk about "depression," it's usually a shorthand for a broader set of problems, related to lack of well-being, malaise, despair, sadness, anxiety, fear, and so forth.
4. The particular cocktail of emotions for each person is different though.
5. The best meta-analytic evidence suggests that antidepressants work, but not nearly as well for people as we were led to believe, and there's huge publication biases. Some drugs might not work at all. Some drugs work for some people; those same drugs might not work for other people at all.
6. Serotonin per se probably has nothing to do with the effect of antidepressants.
7. Psychotherapy works as well or as poorly as drugs on average, with some of the same publication biases. This is considered against many different types of controls, including placebo controls and various types of behavioral controls. Being wait-listed is the worst intervention of all, though.
8. Different psychotherapies do not differ in efficacy on average. The superiority of cognitive-behavioral therapy, etc. is a myth. Different therapies might differ for particular individuals, though, and there are some basic ingredients that seem to be necessary for efficacious therapy. The effect of therapist dwarfs the type of therapy (that is, some therapists are really really good, and others are less good, and that is much more important to outcome than type of therapy per se).
9. The best outcomes are generally therapy and drugs in combination, and if one thing doesn't work, trying different things will often work eventually.
The recent history ("recent" being the last 30-40 years) of psychiatry and clinical psychology is dominated by economically and politically-driven reductionism and oversimplification, within the realms of therapy as well as pharmacology. A lot of these dynamics are driven by a desire to present as rigorously scientific, wrapping ones' selves in banners of other disciplines. The problem with this is behavioral science is its own thing; it resembles other disciplines in some ways, but not in others (much like every other domain of science).
- SubiculumCode 9y agoThank you for your informed summary. What are your thoughts about about the relative efficacy of cardiovascular exercise compared to anti-depressants (not that they are mutually exclusive). Thanks.
- dragonsky67 9y agoNot to diminish the discussion, but you remind me of the skit from The Life of Brian.. Brian: You've got to think for yourselves, your all individuals. Crowd: Yes we are all individuals. It seems to me that medicine (and patients) seem to want a nice neat label to put on what is affecting them, then they can look up the label and fit it to a nice neat solution. Unfortunately as you describe we are all individuals, especially when it comes to perception of feelings and experience and even those are not static, something as simple as a disturbed night sleep can dramatically impact somebodies mood. How the heck is medicine supposed to deal with all those variables and come up with a definitive "this works" when presented with a mental health issue. Society expects simple solutions to problems. Dark -> turn on light. Broken leg -> apply traction, apply cast, prescribe pain killers. Patient depressed -> ???? Your average GP has about 15 minutes to provide a solution to the patient, how in that amount of time can they discover that: the patient has recently had a messy break up, haven't been sleeping or eating properly, the cat was run over by the neighbour and they have been working far too much. Oh, and the patient would like to be prescribed a pill that will just fix it all. Good luck with that.
- jdietrich 9y ago> Different psychotherapies do not differ in efficacy on average. The superiority of cognitive-behavioral therapy, etc. is a myth. Slight nitpick: CBT has a much larger and more reliable body of evidence than most other therapies. It's probably no more effective than other therapies, but it is very cost-effective, mainly because of the short duration of treatment. There is some evidence to suggest that self-guided or internet-delivered CBT may be as effective as traditional CBT delivered by a trained clinical psychologist, which would be a huge win in terms of cost and availability. On a personal level, I'd recommend trying a wide range of psychotherapies if you can afford it. On a societal level, I endorse mass adoption of CBT. It's not necessarily the best therapy, but it's the easiest to deliver at scale. Access to treatment is the issue right now, especially in lower-income countries.