↓ Skip to main content

Neurobiological mechanisms of exercise and psychotherapy in depression: The SPeED study—Rationale, design, and methodological issues

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Trials, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neurobiological mechanisms of exercise and psychotherapy in depression: The SPeED study—Rationale, design, and methodological issues
Published in
Clinical Trials, September 2017
DOI 10.1177/1740774517729161
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Heinzel, Michael A Rapp, Thomas Fydrich, Andreas Ströhle, Christina Terán, Gunnar Kallies, Melanie Schwefel, Andreas Heissel

Abstract

Even though cognitive behavioral therapy has become a relatively effective treatment for major depressive disorder and cognitive behavioral therapy-related changes of dysfunctional neural activations were shown in recent studies, remission rates still remain at an insufficient level. Therefore, the implementation of effective augmentation strategies is needed. In recent meta-analyses, exercise therapy (especially endurance exercise) was reported to be an effective intervention in major depressive disorder. Despite these findings, underlying mechanisms of the antidepressant effect of exercise especially in combination with cognitive behavioral therapy have rarely been studied to date and an investigation of its neural underpinnings is lacking. A better understanding of the psychological and neural mechanisms of exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy would be important for developing optimal treatment strategies in depression. The SPeED study (Sport/Exercise Therapy and Psychotherapy-evaluating treatment Effects in Depressive patients) is a randomized controlled trial to investigate underlying physiological, neurobiological, and psychological mechanisms of the augmentation of cognitive behavioral therapy with endurance exercise. It is investigated if a preceding endurance exercise program will enhance the effect of a subsequent cognitive behavioral therapy. This study will include 105 patients diagnosed with a mild or moderate depressive episode according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.). The participants are randomized into one of three groups: a high-intensive or a low-intensive endurance exercise group or a waiting list control group. After the exercise program/waiting period, all patients receive an outpatient cognitive behavioral therapy treatment according to a standardized therapy manual. At four measurement points, major depressive disorder symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression), (neuro)biological measures (neural activations during working memory, monetary incentive delay task, and emotion regulation, as well as cortisol levels and brain-derived neurotrophic factor), neuropsychological test performance, and questionnaires (psychological needs, self-efficacy, and quality of life) are assessed. In this article, we report the design of the SPeED study and refer to important methodological issues such as including both high- and low-intensity endurance exercise groups to allow the investigation of dose-response effects and physiological components of the therapy effects. The main aims of this research project are to study effects of endurance exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy on depressive symptoms and to investigate underlying physiological and neurobiological mechanisms of these effects. Results may provide important implications for the development of effective treatment strategies in major depressive disorder, specifically concerning the augmentation of cognitive behavioral therapy by endurance exercise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 277 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 14%
Student > Bachelor 32 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 97 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 51 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 8%
Sports and Recreations 15 5%
Neuroscience 15 5%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 118 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2019.
All research outputs
#14,081,725
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Trials
#563
of 863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,153
of 316,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Trials
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.