Psychotherapies for depression: comparison table

Article written and reviewed by Dr Luca Moretti

The table compares the main psychological interventions used for depression, distinguishing their therapeutic focus, clinical role, defining features and limitations. The comparison does not identify an absolute winner: the average efficacy of the most extensively studied approaches is often comparable, while the quality and quantity of evidence vary and must be interpreted together with the severity of the clinical presentation, patient preferences and therapist expertise.

How to interpret the comparison among psychotherapies

The labels shown in the table do not always correspond to independent categories. Beck's cognitive therapy, for example, is a fundamental historical component of modern CBT and shares with it structure, collaborative empiricism, behavioral experiments and relapse prevention strategies. Similarly, behavioral therapy for depression is now represented largely by behavioral activation protocols, which have acquired theoretical autonomy and a specific body of clinical research.

The term “evidence based” must be used precisely. It means that an intervention is supported by empirical evidence of efficacy, not that it is superior to every alternative, effective in every patient or automatically recommended in the same way by all guidelines. Network meta analyses show benefits for many psychotherapies, but also highlight heterogeneity, uncertainty intervals and variable study quality. For this reason, the table distinguishes approaches with a very broad evidence base from those for which findings are favorable but the number of trials or active comparisons is more limited.

The column on clinical use does not replace assessment of the individual case. A patient with mild depression but a high suicide risk does not belong in a “low intensity” pathway solely on the basis of symptom count. Conversely, a high score on a rating scale does not automatically establish the need for combined pharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment. Treatment derives from an overall assessment of risk, impairment, episode history, comorbidities, previous response and preferences.

Duration is also not reported as a fixed number because protocols differ and treatment dose is adapted. Statements such as “12 to 20 sessions” may describe some manuals or services, but become inaccurate when presented as a universal property of CBT, IPT or any other therapy. What matters is that treatment maintains sufficient fidelity to the model and is reassessed on the basis of response and functioning.

Level of evidence, preferences and treatment integration

CBT, cognitive therapy, behavioral activation and IPT are among the interventions with the most established support for adult depression. PST also has a substantial randomized and meta analytic literature, particularly in primary care settings and older populations. Brief psychodynamic psychotherapies show efficacy, but encompass heterogeneous models and a less uniform comparative evidence base. ACT and MCT have promising findings; caution concerns mainly the extent of the specific literature rather than an absence of positive studies.

Patient preference is clinically relevant because it influences acceptability, adherence and the likelihood of completing treatment. It should, however, be informed: patients should understand the rationale, required commitment, effective alternatives, potential benefits, uncertainties and the need to integrate other interventions when risk or severity requires it. Shared decision making is therefore different from leaving treatment choice without a clinical framework.

Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are not opposing categories. They can be reasonable alternatives in some situations and complementary in others. The literature shows that combined treatment can provide an advantage over pharmacotherapy alone in several patients, but does not support a rule that every moderate or severe depression must necessarily receive both treatments. Response should be monitored and the strategy modified when remission and functional recovery are not achieved.

The table should therefore be used as an orientation tool rather than as a prescriptive algorithm. The linked pages in the first column provide detailed discussion of the rationale, techniques, populations studied and limitations of each model.

When reading the table, it is also useful to distinguish efficacy, comparative efficacy and applicability. A treatment may outperform a control condition and therefore have demonstrated efficacy without being better than another active psychotherapy. Likewise, an average result obtained in a trial cannot predict precisely which treatment will be best for an individual patient. Severity, comorbidities, previous responses, accessibility, available format and quality of delivery can alter the choice even when two interventions have similar average effects in studies.

Bibliography
1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Depression in adults: treatment and management. NICE guideline NG222. 2022; last reviewed 2026.
2. Lam RW et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2023 Update on Clinical Guidelines for Management of Major Depressive Disorder in Adults. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 69(9), 2024, 641-687.
3. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Major Depressive Disorder. Version 4.0. Washington, DC, 2022.
4. American Psychological Association. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression Across Three Age Cohorts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2019.
5. Cuijpers P et al. Psychotherapies for depression: a network meta-analysis covering efficacy, acceptability and long-term outcomes of all main treatment types. World Psychiatry. 20(2), 2021, 283-293.
6. Cuijpers P et al. Cognitive behavior therapy vs. control conditions, other psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and combined treatment for depression: a comprehensive meta-analysis including 409 trials with 52,702 patients. World Psychiatry. 22(1), 2023, 105-115.
7. Cuijpers P et al. Psychologic Treatment of Depression Compared With Pharmacotherapy and Combined Treatment in Primary Care: A Network Meta-Analysis. Annals of Family Medicine. 19(3), 2021, 262-270.
8. Cuijpers P et al. Adding psychotherapy to antidepressant medication in depression and anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. World Psychiatry. 13(1), 2014, 56-67.
9. Barth J et al. Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine. 10(5), 2013, e1001454.
10. Ekers D et al. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of behavioural treatment of depression. Psychological Medicine. 38(5), 2008, 611-623.
11. Cuijpers P et al. Interpersonal psychotherapy for depression: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry. 168(6), 2011, 581-592.
12. Cuijpers P et al. Problem-solving therapy for adult depression: An updated meta-analysis. European Psychiatry. 48(1), 2018, 27-37.
13. Driessen E et al. The efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression: A meta-analysis update. Clinical Psychology Review. 42, 2015, 1-15.
14. Zhao B et al. Effect of acceptance and commitment therapy for depressive disorders: a meta-analysis. Annals of General Psychiatry. 22(1), 2023, 34.
15. Normann N et al. The efficacy of metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression: a meta-analytic review. Depression and Anxiety. 31(5), 2014, 402-411.
16. Pinquart M. Effects of reminiscence interventions on depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Aging & Mental Health. 28(5), 2024, 717-724.