Basic HTML Version
308
ALASTAIR DOBBIN ET AL.
score between those preferring hypnosis and those preferring medica-
tion were (
−
21.2,
−
3.1) for BDI and (
−
23.8,
−
1.0) for BSI, and these were
significant at
p
= .01 and
p
= .03, respectively. These differences were
no longer significant in an intention-to-treat analysis assuming no
change in those not assessed at the end of the study (
p
= .20 and .23,
respectively).
Sufficient power was only available for the between-group compar-
ison of the two preference arms (self-hypnosis/medication). BSI and
BDI scores at 12-week follow-up between these groups differed signifi-
cantly (
p
= .012 and
p
= .004, respectively) showing that hypnosis was
Table 1
Table of Intake Demographic Characteristics (Dobbin et al., 2004; Bedi et al., 2000;
Ward et al., 2000; Proudfoot et al., 2004)
Study
Age
M (SD)
% Male
Number
Dobbin self-hypnosis preference
38 (10)
20
50
Dobbin anti-D preference
37 (18)
25
4
Bedi counselling randomized
37.3 (11.2)
31
52
Bedi anti-D randomized
38.4 (11.8)
16
51
Ward CBT randomized
36 (12.6)
21
63
Ward Counselling randomized
39 (11.6)
22
67
Ward TAU randomized
37 (12.3)
25
67
Proudfoot CCBT + TAU
43.6 (14.3)
27
146
Proudfoot TAU
43.4 (13.7)
25
128
Note.
CCBT – computerized CBT; TAU – treatment as usual.
Table 2
Table of BDI & BSI scores Intake Data (Dobbin et al., 2004; Bedi et al., 2000; Ward
et al., 2000; Proudfoot et al., 2004)
Study
BDI
SD
BSI
Dobbin-self hypnosis preference
29.5
9.8
1.81
Dobbin anti-D preference
34.2
12
1.92
Bedi counselling randomized
27.1
7.95
nc
Bedi anti-D randomized
27
7.95
nc
Ward CBT randomized
27.6
8.4
1.73
Ward Counselling randomized
25.4
8.6
1.62
Ward TAU randomized
26.5
8.9
1.55
Proudfoot CCBT + TAU
24.9
10.8
nc
Proudfoot TAU
24.7
9.2
nc
Note.
BDI - mean Becks Depression Inventory; BSI - Brief Symptom Inventory scored
as median General Severity Index (GSI); nc indicates data not collected.
Downloaded by [ ] at 04:44 26 March 2012