Elder abuse is prevalent, and victims have high rates of depression and low quality of life. We established an academic–community partnership to test the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of a brief psychotherapy for depression (PROTECT) among elder abuse victims with capacity to make decisions. Elder abuse service providers referred depressed (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] ≥ 10) older victims (age ≥ 55 years) for potential pilot study participation. Forty eligible victims who consented were randomized to PROTECT psychotherapy (N = 25) or a Usual Care (N = 15) condition involving a community psychotherapy referral. Follow-up research assessments were conducted at 6 weeks (mid-treatment) and 9 weeks (end of treatment) after study initial assessment. We used mixed-effects regression models to examine treatment effects on depression severity and quality of life over time. Most victims (75%) reported two or more types of abuse. The a priori acceptability benchmark was met at the end of PROTECT therapy. All PROTECT participants initiated therapy; this engagement rate is greater than the a priori 75% standard set for feasibility. We found a significant reduction in depression severity (Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS]), with PROTECT leading to greater benefits compared to Usual Care. Both study groups had a similar improvement in quality of life. The pilot project results found that PROTECT psychotherapy is feasible, acceptable, and effective in reducing depression. With the support of our partnership, we found that PROTECT could be delivered alongside elder abuse services with victims willing to initiate therapy that leads to meaningful treatment effects.

The reformulated balanced states of mind (BSOM) model (Schwartz, 1997) proposed new cognitive-affective set-point ratios based on a mathematical model of consciousness (Lefebvre, 1990) to differentiate among pathological, normal and optimal balances. Using data derived from the Affects Balance Scale (Derogatis, 1975), the reformulated set-points were empirically evaluated by tracking changes in affect balance SOM (ratio of positive to total affect) in 66 depressed male outpatients undergoing cognitive-behavior therapy (n = 45) or pharmacotherapy (n = 21). Confidence interval estimations indicated that across treatments both remitted (SOM = .35) and unremitted (SOM = .35) patients had pathological pretreatment affect balances near the predicted set-point (.38). At post-treatment, affect balance for remitted patients (SOM = .74) progressed to a normal dialogue near the predicted set-point (.72), whereas unremitted patients maintained a negative balance (SOM = .41). Using Hamilton and Global Assessment Scale ratings, remitted patients were classified into average and optimal responders. At post-treatment, average responders achieved an affect balance (SOM = .70) near the normal dialogue set-point (.72), whereas optimal responders progressed to an affect balance (SOM = .81) at the optimal dialogue set-point (.81), supporting the theoretical distinction between normal and optimal balance. A mathematically generated measure that distinguishes normality and optimality permits increased quantitative precision in comparative psychotherapy outcome research.