Forbes Magazine Endorses Cognitive Behavioral Therapy! In a Faceoff between Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Antidepressant drugs, Therapy Wins!


As regular readers know, your editor is a big fan of a type of psychotherapy called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Cognitive therapy is a modern non-drug therapy that teaches clients new ways of thinking and feeling. The basic concept is that it is our distorted thinking that creates psychological problems of anxiety, depression, panic, etc. The cognitive therapist combines teaching cognitive skills with behavioral techniques that allow the client to overcome their difficulties.

And much to his surprise, this week Forbes Magazine put CBT on their cover! The Forbes article about Cognitive Behavioral Therapy was very positive. They summarize 30 years of research, including studies that show that CBT works well for insomnia, hypochondria, anxiety, depression, bulimia, obsessive compulsive disorder, preventing suicide, and even matches surgery for low back pain. Here is a video demonstration of exposure treatment for an elevator phobia.

They also compare the effectiveness of CBT to antidepressant medication. Although both work, in the long run CBT is more cost effective, and leads to less relapse. In one study comparing Paxil to CBT, only 31% of the CBT group relapsed within one year of completing treatment, compared to 76% of the Paxil group! This is a very big difference. The skills that clients learn seem to have a lasting impact on preventing future depressions.

Even in terms of cost, CBT beats antidepressant medications, at least with the assumptions the Forbes editors made. After three months of treatment, they estimate the costs of cognitive therapy at $1200 and the costs of medication treatment with Effexor at $502, which includes one psychiatrist visit at $200, and $302 in drug costs. At one year, they estimate the costs of cognitive therapy at $2000, and drug treatment at $2009, which includes $800 for four psychiatrist visits at $200 each, and $1209 for the Effexor.

As much as I like the comparison, it is based on faulty assumptions. First of all, it’s not clear how many sessions of cognitive therapy they are estimating. The $2000 would pay for 20 sessions at $100, but only 13 at $150. It’s probably optimistic to believe that a good outcome would come out of only 13 sessions. And because the primary group of professionals who perform cognitive therapy are psychologists, who typically charge more than masters level therapists, $100 is probably too low.

So let’s fix the numbers. Let’s assume 25 sessions of cognitive therapy, at $150 per session, which comes out to $3750. That’s probably a fairer assumption.

Now let’s look at the other assumptions. Effexor is an expensive, non-generic anti-depressant, which costs $100 a month, or even more. But the generic version of Prozac, called fluoxetine, can cost as little as $10 a month. And four psychiatrist visits in a year is also too optimistic. In my experience, patients need every two week visits initially to get the medication adjusted, and after 6 or 8 weeks, can graduate to once a month, and after another 3 visits, can be seen every three months. Also, psychiatrists typically charge at least $300 for the initial evaluation, and less than $200 for the follow-up visits which tend to be shorter visits.

So by these assumptions, the psychiatrist visits would cost $1380 at least. This brings the total cost of one year of treatment with Effexor to $2589. Of course, if fluoxetine was substituted then the total costs would only come to $1500!

So drug treatment costs less than cognitive therapy, right? It either costs a lot less ($1500 compared to $3750) or somewhat less ($2589 compared to $3750).

But there is still a glitch in the assumptions. We are only looking at the first year costs. Remember the statistics mentioned above, that up to 76% of patients who stop taking antidepressants relapse back into depression. Those are pretty bad odds. If a patient stayed on Effexor for 5 more years, their total cost of treatment would skyrocket to $6756, assuming psychiatrist visits 4 times a year. Compared to this cognitive therapy looks good!

There is another, unmentioned advantage to cognitive therapy, which is incredibly important, and which too often is left out of this debate. Here’s the dirty little secret the drug companies don’t want you to know—most antidepressants ruin your sex life! With really just a few exceptions (Wellbutrin, and Emsam) almost all of the major antidepressants make it much harder to have an orgasm for both men and women, and for men may make it difficult or impossible to get or maintain an erection. Antidepressants should really be called anti-sex drugs! (Caveat: not everyone will have the sexual side effects, but most will.) Here is a good article about the sexual side effects of antidepressants.

And this leaves out all of the other side effects of antidepressants. Here’s a link to common side effects of antidepressant medication Dry mouth, dry eyes, blurred vision, nausea, insomnia, headaches, the list goes on and on. How do you place a value on the costs of side effects?

Cognitive therapy obviously has no sexual side effects, or any other side effects. So for this reason, and for the advantage in preventing relapse, I believe cognitive therapy should be the first choice therapy for those patients suffering depression, providing they can afford therapy or have good insurance coverage for therapy. If not, then having your regular doctor prescribe and monitor a generic antidepressant such as fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), or bupropion (Wellbutrin) is the best option, with the downside being that you will most likely need to take the medications long-term to avoid relapse, and that you will most likely have physical side effects. Thus it may be worth taking a loan from your credit card in the form of a cash advance, or simply using a credit card to pay for cognitive therapy. After all, that’s how most people pay for their next car, or flat screen television set.

So here’s the executive summary. Cognitive therapy works for a large variety of common psychological problems, and even a few physical problems. Although initially it costs a little more, the effects are longer lasting than medication treatment. And in the long run, it can end up saving money. Best of all, other than working a little bit on therapy homework, there are no side effects of therapy! Conclusion: If you are depressed, anxious, having insomnia, obsessive compulsive disorder, hypochondriasis, phobias, or relationship problems, your first move should be to find a psychologist who specializes in cognitive therapy. Borrow the money if you don’t have it, or put it onto your credit card, but don’t miss out on this effective treatment out of some false sense of economizing.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Cheer Up! It Gets Worse, Then Better (Depending On Your Age)

 

This week I am starting a series of articles on that magical quality we call happiness. I’ve been studying the scientific literature on happiness for a while now, and it’s not all just common sense. There is some gold in the ore. In fact, much of what science has discovered about happiness goes against what we commonly believe. For instance, it turns out that money does buy happiness, but only if you have almost no money. Once you acquire the basics, food, shelter, a car, more money has relatively little impact on happiness. Or take having children. Everyone assumes that having children brings joy. But the research doesn’t support this very strongly. Marriages suffer when children enter the scene, and parenting is rated relatively low in the grand scheme of activities. In fact, what the science of happiness suggests is that we are remarkably bad at predicting what will make us happy. Hence the high rates of job change, house selling and rebuying, and of course, divorce.

But I will write more on these matters later. For today I want to talk about an interesting new study that looks at happiness over the course of a lifetime. This latest study, performed by economists David Blanchflower of Dartmouth and Andrew Oswald of Warwick, looks at how happiness changes as people age. Using data from about 45,000 Americans, and 400,000 Europeans, they looked at the average ratings of happiness by age.

What they discovered is very interesting. Basically happiness is high when people are young adults, early in their 20s. This is not surprising, as the early 20s are that magical point where one is freed from parental constraints, but doesn’t have a lot of other new constraints. Unfortunately, it’s all downhill from there. Happiness sinks gradually over the next 20 something years, and reaches in nadir on average around age 45. Depressing news for young people, eh?

But the news gets better. After age 45, happiness increases steadily on into old age. Wow! This isn’t what we’d expect at all. Elderly people happier than people in their 30s!

The European and American data were fairly similar, except that the Europeans reached their lowest happiness levels a few years earlier than the Americans.

So happiness is a U-shaped curve. Why? The research doesn’t answer the question. But they did rule out one explanation, the generational one. People born earlier still show the U-shaped happiness pattern.

The authors also looked at the influence of income on happiness. This data is fascinating! They found that the wealthier you are the happier you are on average, which is not surprising. But the decline is happiness from young adulthood to middle age is the equivalent to a 50% reduction in income, and the increase in happiness from age 45 to old age is equivalent to a doubling of income!

Finally, the authors found over the last hundred years, Americans have gotten much less happy. The difference in happiness between the generations born in the 1960s and the 1920s is the same as a tenfold change in income. So someone born in 1962 would need 10 times the income to be equally as happy as their grandfather who was born in 1922. This is a disturbing finding. Why are we so unhappy? I have some ideas, but I will come back to them in a future article.

One clue may exist in the differences in the European data. The generations that were born in Europe since 1950 have gotten steadily happier. Shorter work weeks, longer vacations, more social welfare and security, all may be part of the mystery, especially when compared to the opposite trends in the United States.

So cheer up. Adulthood brings with it a steady decline in happiness, but just when it’s looking pretty grim, things improve. And even though we all are going to get old and infirm, we can at least look forward to getting steadily happier.

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

On Perfectionism and How to Overcome It

Today I am writing about perfectionism, that deadly trait that infects so many people, causing low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and procrastination. Perfectionism is really about having unreasonable standards for your own or others’ performance. When you are a perfectionist, it means you never can live up to your internal standards. This causes unhappiness and depression. It may also cause anxiety.

Closely linked to perfectionism is all-or-nothing thinking. Although the real world is an analog world, we often think of it in binary terms. Our job is “good” or it is “bad.” A vacation is “wonderful” or “horrible.” People are “interesting” or “boring.” What makes all-or-nothing thinking part of perfectionism is that it makes your standards rigid and inflexible. There’s no grading on a curve with binary thinking. Your performance is an “A” or an “F.”

So what’s wrong with perfectionism anyway? Doesn’t it make one perform better?

The answer is no. Perfectionism actually leads to lower performance. When you have unreasonably high standards you are more likely to get disappointed when you fail to meet that standard. And disappointment makes people try less hard. It saps the will and depresses the spirit.

So you might be wondering how do I change my perfectionism? (And how do I do it instantly!) 🙂 The key to altering perfectionist tendencies is to do several things:

1. Set reasonable and flexible standards for your performance and others.

2. Reserve higher standards only for those tasks that truly require them.

3. Test out your standards. See if it’s necessary to actually be so perfect. Try doing things less well, and see if the sky falls.

4. Remember life is not just about performance. It is also about enjoyment, fun, and relaxation.

5. Think in terms of a continuum or grey scale. Instead of using all-or-nothing terms like “good” or “bad” instead use a 10 point rating scale. The dinner was a “6.” The movie was a “2.” This gets you thinking along a continuum, which is healthier and less stressful.

6. Always ask yourself before you decide on standards whether the task is actually worth doing at all. If something is not worth doing, then it is not worth doing perfectly. So for instance, when you purchase some small item that doesn’t work out, perhaps it makes sense to toss it out, or give it away, rather than gathering up the packing materials, driving 30 minutes, and returning it. Not perfect, but perhaps a better choice.

7.

The End (Notice the slight imperfection.)

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Let’s Not Kill Any More Rebecca Riley’s! Debate Over the Use of Psychiatric Drugs for Young Children

 

The New York Times reported that Rebecca Riley, a four year old girl from near Boston, was found dead on the morning of December 13, a victim of an apparent overdose of the psychiatric drugs Seroquel, an antipsychotic drug; Depakote, a powerful anti-seizure medicine used for mood control, and Clonidine, a blood pressure drug often prescribed to calm children. Rebecca had been diagnosed at having bipolar disorder at the age of two! So some overzealous psychiatrist had diagnosed her as been manic depressive at age 2.

Now this is pretty crazy. A child at two is a work in progress, and if is virtually impossible to diagnose anything at that age. The only exceptions are the developmental disorders, such as autism. Probably Rebecca was a difficult child, prone to moodiness and maybe even tantrums. So her parents, with a willing psychiatrist, gave her mind-numbing drugs to calm her, rather than learning better parenting skills. From the article: “A relative of her mother, Carolyn Riley, 32, told the police that Rebecca seemed “sleepy and drugged” most days, according to the charging documents. One preschool teacher said that at about 2 p.m. every day the girl came to life, “as if the medication Rebecca was on was wearing off,” according to the documents.”

This is more than sad, it is pitiful. How many other, nondrug interventions were tried before using medication? Was there parenting training? Was there a home visit, to see how Rebecca and her parents were interacting? The article does not say, but I’m guessing that none of these things were done. There’s an old saying, “Give a young boy a hammer, and everything becomes a nail.” In much the same way, bringing a child to a psychiatrist means that they are likely to get drugs. That’s why the first stop for children, especially young children, should be to a child psychologist, a psychologist who specializes in treating children and their families.

It should also be noted that most psychiatric medications are not and have never been approved for use in young children. There are no studies of using these drugs on toddlers. Although it might be occasionally reasonable to use drugs meant for adults on older teenagers, who are at least biologically similar to adults, it is irresponsible at best to use these drugs with young children.

The problem is that giving kids drugs is too easy. From the New York Times article, “Paraphrasing H. L. Mencken, Dr. Carlson added, ‘Every serious problem has an easy solution that is usually wrong.’” Behavioral problems in children can be very serious, and the behavioral interventions take time and commitment. Learning good parenting techniques, such as the proper use of time-outs and other interventions, takes dedication and a competent psychologist’s help.

As with adults, medications should always be reserved for after all other interventions have failed. And with children, only medications that have been tested on children, and used for years should be tried. If psychiatrists want to prescribe these medications for children, let them first run the research trials required by the FDA to test safety and effectiveness. Let’s not kill anymore Rebecca Riley’s!

PermaLink to article

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions

Thoughts about Online Dating: Why you should go offline if you want to find a partner!

Scientific American recently had a terrific article about the reality behind online dating, which shows scientifically what psychologists have known for a long time. Online dating doesn’t work very well.

The data is fascinating. The biggest problem is deception. Twenty percent of online daters admit openly to deception, but the real numbers are probably closer to 90% since that’s the number most online daters say fits the other daters online.

Everyone, male and female, adds about 1 inch of height. Everyone is attractive, in a strange sort of Lake Woebegone world, only 1% of online daters say they are less than average attractive. Wow! A world of movie stars and models. If only!

Women lie a lot about their weight. In their 20’s they lower their real weight by an average of five pounds, in their 30’s this “error” goes up to 17 pounds, and in their 40’s they are deceptively reporting their weight as an average of 19 lbs. under their real weight!

Everyone lies about their age. Men will say they are 36 rather than 37-41. Women say they are 29 rather than 30-34. They also like the ages of 35 and 44 rather than their real ages.

All this would be fine if the services worked. But they don’t. There is a terrific White Paper written by Philip Zimbardo, Mark Thompson, and Glenn Hutchinson: CONSUMERS ARE HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT ONLINE DATING.

In it Zimbardo, a former president of the American Psychological Association, concludes about one popular service, “When eHarmony recommends someone as a compatible match, there is a 1 in 500 chance that you’ll marry this person…. Given that eHarmony delivers about 1.5 matches a month, if you went on a date with all of them, it would take 346 dates and 19 years to reach [a] 50% chance of getting married.”

Other services overpromise and undeliver too. Match.com claims 15 million members, but only 1 million are paying members, which means that only 1 in 15 “member” can even reply to emails. This sets users up for rejection when they contact a user who is not able to respond.

In general, there are probably far fewer Americans than advertised using online dating services, and surveys suggest that less than 25% of them are satisfied.

There is also the “click” problem. This is where singles, thinking there is an infinite supply of available singles, will click away the instant they detect any flaws or problems. And most only allow for one date with potential mates, since why spend time getting to know someone when there is probably someone better over the online horizon.

So, online dating promises deception about appearance, age, income, and other things, and sets you up for disappointment and rejection. And yet it has become the way that many tech-savvy singles use to meet people.

Why? I think it’s because we’ve gotten too timid and afraid of the real world. There are a million opportunities to meet people in the offline world. But it takes a little courage and chutzpah to meet them.

The real world offers some real advantages. In the real world, you get to see people and there is no deception in terms of appearance (other than good lighting or makeup or elevator shoes). Age you can evaluate by appearance and personality you can quickly ascertain. Let me give you some suggestions for how to meet people in the real world.

Women, start by getting over your fear of flirting. Men are eager to approach you and talk with you, you just have to show them with smiles and eye contact that they won’t be rejected if they do. If you see a guy you think is cute, smile at him. Go up to him and ask him any question, it doesn’t matter. Start a conversation with him. This could be in a café, bar, restaurant, or bookstore. It doesn’t matter. If he is interested he will talk with you, and if you hit it off, he may ask you for your phone number. But if he is timid, he may chicken out, so if you like him, don’t let him get away. Suggest that you exchange cell phone numbers or email addresses so you can “get a cup of coffee sometime.” This will overcome the fear of most men, and if he demurs, then it’s probably because he is either not interested or not available. (You might want to look him in the eye, and ask him point blank, “do you have a girlfriend or a wife?”)

Men, you too must get over your fear of flirting and rejection. Start by talking to women more. Talk in line at the post office, at your favorite café, in the store, at work, etc. Learn how to make women laugh, that’s the thing most women like in a man. And don’t be afraid to ask a woman for her phone number or email address. What’s the worst thing that will happen? She might say no. Big deal!

If you really want to make it easy, start by looking around your workplace for attractive potential partners. Or join a biking or hiking club, and get to know its members. The main thing is to get out of your apartment or house, and go places where people hang out, and start to talk with them, flirt with them, and get comfortable asking them to coffee, drinks, lunch, or dinner. The offline world is full of exciting, attractive people, all you have to do is put down your mouse, close your laptop computer, and go out into the real world!

Copyright 2007 The Psychology Lounge/TPL Productions