When it comes to teenage depression, better treatment results make for a more cheerful home life and deliver a better day for everybody involved in the treatment.
Over half the teenagers diagnosed as depressed who are resistant to treatment have a chance of dramatic improvement, quickly, according to a recent National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) study.
Helping somebody get better by switching medications and possibly adding Cognitive Brain Therapy (CBT) are good business moves. When a teenager improves, the entire family notices it and spreads the word to the community. There’s a chance they’ll give credit where it’s due, to the professionals and center who administered the CBT or issued the prescription to change medications. Success stories are good marketing, and testimonials are even better.
The other side of the equation indicates almost half of the teenagers diagnosed as depressed and resistant to treatment didn’t get better. I postulate the study results above are an example of considerably effective research, simply based on the fact that if a medication switch was not tried, or CBT wasn’t brought into the picture, nothing was done to help the kids who did get better. People may have kept doing the same old thing that wasn’t working (and getting paid for it); the same old depression would be affecting the person and their family and result in some bad business. If I go to a treatment center, and the treatment doesn’t work after a reasonable time, I hope I’d consider doing something else, which would be bad for business at that center.
Another element of this story says that CBT accounted only for 14% of the success stories. The question is not whether CBT should be tried; if a professional determines it might be effective, why not? Either nothing will change, or a recovery will be forthcoming due to a change in behaviors added to the switch in medication. I’m a proponent of changing behaviors that can adversely affect recovery, and CBT appears to be a valid treatment.
The difficulty with CBT is whether it’s worthwhile to the offering center and will pay for the training, materials and general expenses it takes to institute and continue a CBT program. I suspect if the center is too small, CBT contributing to only 14% of the improvement in the study cited above would be too expensive to offer as an alternative. Larger facilities would have more patients to offer the treatment and get paid enough to support it.
Medications are effective in treating mental disorders, so centers get paid to prescribe and monitor that effectiveness. Psychiatrists are expected to evaluate the treatment and modify it as necessary. The way I understand it, the therapist treats issues at the root of the problem that the medication may be masking. Insurance companies like prescribing medications because they are the quickest cure, and a prescription and medication can cost less than therapy.
It strikes me that despite all this good news about good results from medication, the long term solution is still uncovering and accepting issues and learning to move on. I worry that by accepting the quick fix, some folks may cover up their issue by medicating the symptom, so a full, happy life may elude them.
Leave a Reply