Non-Drug or Supplement Treatments for Depression Compared With Prozac for Effectiveness Research Paper

Pages: 4 (1216 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 4  ·  File: .docx  ·  Topic: Psychology


Non-drug or supplement treatments for depression compared with Prozac for effectiveness

There are a number of experts who believe that an imbalance in an individual's neurotransmitters is the root cause of depression and clinical depression. Prozac is described as being affective in addressing this mental health condition by preventing the reuptake of serotonin, a neurotransmitter, by nerve cells after the substance has been naturally released in an individual's system. Uptake is considered an important mechanism in removing released neurotransmitters and ending their actions on connected or adjacent nerves. As such, the diminished uptake caused by the introduction of Prozac or flouxetine increases available serotonin that then stimulates nerve cells in the brain. Prozac has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration as a medication for the clinical treatment of depression since 1987. However, others have posited the effectiveness of non-drug or supplemental treatment as compared with the reported effectiveness of Prozac on depression suggesting that a therapeutic intervention in conjunction with the prescribed pharmaceutical regiment have proven as if not more effective than Prozac as a solitary intervention (Petersen et al., 2007).

Discussion of Topic

Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!
Antidepressant treatment such as flouxetine (Prozac) has been touted and promoted as the "gold standard" for intervention with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD; American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Olfson & Klerman, 1993). This has been the most acceptable and recommended course of treatment despite the fact that empirical studies, experiments, and scholarly and health-based reviews have posited that evidence-based psychotherapies are at least as effective in treating major depressive disorder as pharmacotherapy (Antonuccio, Danton & DeNelsky, 1995; Revicki, Siddique, Frank Chung, Green, Krupnick et al., 2005; Schulberg, Raue & Rollman, 2002; Scott, Parmer, Paykel, Teasdale, & Hayhurst, 2003).

TOPIC: Research Paper on Non-Drug or Supplement Treatments for Depression Compared With Prozac for Effectiveness Assignment

Some scholars argue that this adherence to the 'standard' may be based on an assumption that medication is more cost effective than therapeutic intervention, which has not been determined to be the case. Others posit that this allegiance to the standard is based on evidence of effectiveness as compared to longer term possible effective associated with non-drug related treatment interventions. However, psychotherapy researchers who have studied cognitive-behavioral therapies seem more willing to report on therapeutic effectiveness rather than measuring, analyzing, and reporting costs, benefits and cost effectiveness of their posited treatment (Hunsley, 2003; Prigatano & Pliskin, 2003). Psychotherapy researchers argue that to do so would stand in the face of high profile endorsements to consider such things as cost benefit and cost effectiveness vs. therapeutic implications of effectiveness.

It is important to note, and notwithstanding the current state of pharmacological intervention, the American Psychological Associations' policy since 2002 has been to support evidence on clinical utility, citing:

Minimally, evidence of clinical utility includes attention to Generality of effects across varying and diverse patients, therapists, settings and the interaction of these factors; the robustness of treatments across various models of delivery; the feasibility with which treatments can be delivered to patients in real-world settings;

and the costs associated with treatments (p. 275).

As more of an example of non-pharmacological effective intervention with depression, Schulberg et al. (2002) and Pirraglia, Rosen, Hermann, Olchanski, and Neuwmann (2004) deduced that cognitive behavior therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy both were more effective and costly than were a number of usual care interventions subsequent to the review of 27 separate studies respectively. Further Barrett, Byford and Knapp (2005) determined that of 16 empirical-based studies, the conclusion that psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies have similar cost-effectiveness and interventive effectiveness in treating depression. Moreover, Chambless and Hollon (1988) purport the importance of evaluating the benefits of a prescribed treatment in terms of the most significant weight being given to efficacy trials as well as subsequent… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (4 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Strategic Plan for Non-Drug Use in School Essay

Drug Addiction Research Paper

Treatment of Co-Occurring Disorders Term Paper

Drug Treatment Essay

Drug Legalization Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Non-Drug or Supplement Treatments for Depression Compared With Prozac for Effectiveness" Research Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Non-Drug or Supplement Treatments for Depression Compared With Prozac for Effectiveness.  (2011, November 7).  Retrieved October 16, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Non-Drug or Supplement Treatments for Depression Compared With Prozac for Effectiveness."  7 November 2011.  Web.  16 October 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Non-Drug or Supplement Treatments for Depression Compared With Prozac for Effectiveness."  November 7, 2011.  Accessed October 16, 2021.