A Portable Glow to Help Melt Those Winter Blues

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

Light sources for therapy cost about $200, the story explains. But it gives an incomplete picture by not factoring in follow up visits to a health provider when getting light therapy vs. receiving medication or psychotherapy. The story raises a very big issue, but does not provide evidence. Do patients need the same level of followup from a physician when getting light therapy as those treated with medication or psychotherapy?  Does avoidance of drug side effects lead to additional overall cost savings to the health care system?

The story states “there is little profit to be made from it and no commercial incentive to promote the treatment.” At $200 per box online – and with “millions” using “bright-light therapy as the treatment of choice” – as the story claims – is there not some commercial incentive in those kinds of numbers?

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

This story did not provide any quantified detail about the results of using light therapy for seasonal affective disorder. It quoted two patients, anecdotally, about how much they believed they had been helped. It quoted the American Psychiatric Association as saying the therapy is “an effective low-risk treatment” for both seasonal and major depressive disorder. But it did not give any metric for how well the treatment works, or how quickly or for how long.  How many patients getting light therapy get a little bit better?  Much better?  No better?

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The story tells readers about a 2006 “double-blind” study without naming the journal where it was published or the lead author. This is very selective reporting.  There have been many trials and meta-analyses of these trials. The story could easily lead readers to conclude that there are few studies, when in fact there are many.  Readers need that broader context in order to evaluate the qualitiy of the evidence.

In fact, another story by the same reporter in the same paper just 10 months ago noted “a new, carefully designed randomized controlled trial — of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine — suggests bright light therapy deserves a closer look.” Granted, it was a study in elderly patients with nonseasonal major depressive disorder, but it was still part of the much larger evidence base for light therapy that could have been referenced.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story does mention the existing use of anti-depressant drugs for seasonal depression, but does not compare in detail the price or length of drug therapy vs. light therapy. This comparison would have been very helpful to consumers. Other alternatives – including cognitive behavioral therapy, psychotherapy or exercise – were not mentioned.