Search

Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of individual humanistic-experiential therapies (HEPs) for depression. Database searches (Scopus, Medline, and PsycINFO) identified RCTs comparing any HEP intervention with a treatment-as-usual (TAU) control or active alternative intervention for the treatment of depression. Included studies were assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and narratively synthesized. Post-treatment and follow-up effect sizes were aggregated using random-effects meta-analysis and moderators of treatment effect were explored (PROSPERO: CRD42021240485). Seventeen RCTs, synthesized across four meta-analyzes, indicated HEP depression outcomes were significantly better than TAU controls at post-treatment (g = 0.41, 95% CI [0.18, 0.65], n = 735), but not significantly different at follow-up (g = 0.14, 95% CI [−0.30, 0.58], n = 631). HEP depression outcomes were comparable to active treatments at post-treatment (g = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.26, 0.08], n = 2131), but significantly favored non-HEP alternative interventions at follow-up (g = −0.21, 95% CI [−0.35, −0.07], n = 1196). Relative to usual care, HEPs are effective in the short-term and comparable to non-HEP alternative interventions at post-treatment, but not at follow-up. However, imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias concerns were identified as limitations of the evidence included. Future large-scale trials of HEPs with equipoise between comparator conditions are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of group psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults directly compared to no treatment or active treatments examined in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Method: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies. Effects on PTSD symptoms, depression, and anxiety were extracted. Between- and within-group effect sizes (Hedges' g) were calculated using a random-effects model. Data were adjusted to account for dependencies among observations in groups. Results: Twenty RCTs were included comprising 2244 individuals. Results showed significant effects of group psychotherapy in reducing symptoms of PTSD compared to no-treatment control groups (k = 13; g = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.41; 0.99). No significant differences in efficacy were found between group psychotherapy and other active treatments (k = 8; g = 0.13; 95% CI: −0.16; 0.42). Moderator analyses confirmed gender and trauma type as important moderators of within-treatment effects for PTSD. Conclusions: Group treatments are associated with improvements in symptoms of PTSD. Particularly, the efficacy of exposure-based cognitive-behavioral group therapy (group CBT) is empirically well demonstrated. Still little is known about the effects of group treatment approaches other than CBT and the comparative efficacy to alternative treatments such as individual therapy or pharmacotherapy. Clinical or Methodological Significance of this Article: This review provides an empirical base for group therapy as a viable treatment alternative for future PTSD practice guidelines. Although less is known about its comparative efficacy to alternative PTSD treatments such as individual therapy or pharmacotherapy, sufficient evidence exists to recommend group therapy (particularly exposure-based group CBT) for those who might not be able to access alternative treatments. Trauma type and gender proved to be important moderators of group treatment outcome. The results further indicate that the evidence base of recommendations for group therapy in current international treatment guidelines needs to be updated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapy on psychiatric disorders in adulthood. Methods: This meta-analysis integrates results of 37 randomized controlled trials (RCT) of therapy with an explicit systemic focus on adults with psychiatric disorders. Studies were identified through systematic searches in electronic databases and cross-referencing. Results: On average, systemic therapy had stronger short-term (g =.51) and long-term (g =.55) efficacies than control groups without alternative treatment and stronger short-term effects than alternative active treatments (g =.25). In addition, efficacy of systemic therapy was similar to those of other bona fide psychotherapies. Individuals receiving systemic therapy plus medication showed stronger improvements at posttest (g =.71) and follow-up (g =.87) than those receiving only medication. Illness-specific analyses showed positive short-term efficacy of systemic therapy on eating disorders, mood disorders, obsessive–compulsive disorders, schizophrenia, and somatoform disorders. At follow-up, efficacy of systemic therapy was only found on eating disorders, mood disorders, and schizophrenia. In addition, systemic therapy had lower dropout rates than alternative treatments. For certain comparisons, effect sizes were moderated by participant age, study quality, and year of publication. Conclusions: We conclude that the present meta-analysis found some evidence for the efficacy of systemic therapy on five disorders, but the number of available RCT is still limited. More research is needed on systemic therapy of other disorders, such as anxiety disorders and substance use disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]