Autobiographical memory style and clinical outcomes following mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT): An individual patient data meta-analysis.

Citation metadata

Publisher: Elsevier Science Publishers
Document Type: Report; Brief article
Length: 391 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords Autobiographical memory; Mindfulness; Cogntive therapy; Treatment response; Individual patient data meta-analysis Highlights * Individual participant data meta-analysis of memory specificity and treatment response. * All bar one study evaluated MBCT for relapse prevention. * Memory specificity did not change from baseline to post-treatment. * No evidence that memory specificity predicted treatment response or risk of relapse. Abstract The ability to retrieve specific, single-incident autobiographical memories has been consistently posited as a predictor of recurrent depression. Elucidating the role of autobiographical memory specificity in patient-response to depressive treatments may improve treatment efficacy and facilitate use of science-driven interventions. We used recent methodological advances in individual patient data meta-analysis to determine a) whether memory specificity is improved following mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), relative to control interventions, and b) whether pre-treatment memory specificity moderates treatment response. All bar one study evaluated MBCT for relapse prevention for depression. Our initial analysis therefore focussed on MBCT datasets only(n = 708), then were repeated including the additional dataset(n = 880). Memory specificity did not significantly differ from baseline to post-treatment for either MBCT and Control interventions. There was no evidence that baseline memory specificity predicted treatment response in terms of symptom-levels, or risk of relapse. Findings raise important questions regarding the role of memory specificity in depressive treatments. Author Affiliation: (a) MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, UK (b) School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK (c) Department of Psychiatry, Geneva University Hospital, USA (d) Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK (e) Psychology, University of Exeter, UK (f) Amsterdam Medical University Centres and Centre for Urban Mental Health, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (g) MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, UK (h) MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, UK (i) Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia * Corresponding author. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia. Article History: Received 14 April 2021; Revised 10 January 2022; Accepted 20 January 2022 (footnote)1 Joint first author. Byline: Caitlin Hitchcock [Caitlin.hitchcock@unimelb.edu.au] (a,i,1,*), Judita Rudokaite (a,1), Christina Haag (a), Shivam D. Patel (a), Alicia J. Smith (a), Isla Kuhn (b), Francoise Jermann (c), S. Helen Ma (a), Willem Kuyken (d), J. MarkG. Williams (d), Edward Watkins (e), Claudi L.H. Bockting (f), Catherine Crane (d), David Fisher (g), Tim Dalgleish (h)

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A696275038