Pim Cuijpers1,2, Ioana A Cristea3, Eirini Karyotaki1,2, Mirjam Reijnders1,2, Steven D Hollon4. 1. a Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology , VU University Amsterdam , Amsterdam , Netherlands. 2. b Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute , Amsterdam , Netherlands. 3. c Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy , Babes-Bolyai University , Cluj-Napoca , Romania. 4. d Department of Psychology , Vanderbilt University , Nashville , TN , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A recent report from the US Institute of Medicine indicated that identifying core elements of psychosocial interventions is a key step in successfully bringing evidence-based psychosocial interventions into clinical practice. Component studies have the best design to examine these core elements. Earlier reviews resulted in heterogeneous sets of studies and probably missed many studies. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of component studies on psychotherapies for adult depression and included 16 studies with 22 comparisons. RESULTS: Fifteen components were examined of which four were examined in more than one comparison. The pooled difference between the full treatments and treatments with one component removed was g = 0.21 (95% CI: 0.03∼0.39). One study had sufficient statistical power to detect a small effect size and found that adding emotion regulation skills increased the effects of CBT. None of the other studies had enough power to detect an effect size smaller than g = 0.55. Only one study had low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available component studies do not have the statistical power nor the quality to draw any meaningful conclusion about key ingredients of psychotherapies for adult depression.
OBJECTIVES: A recent report from the US Institute of Medicine indicated that identifying core elements of psychosocial interventions is a key step in successfully bringing evidence-based psychosocial interventions into clinical practice. Component studies have the best design to examine these core elements. Earlier reviews resulted in heterogeneous sets of studies and probably missed many studies. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of component studies on psychotherapies for adult depression and included 16 studies with 22 comparisons. RESULTS: Fifteen components were examined of which four were examined in more than one comparison. The pooled difference between the full treatments and treatments with one component removed was g = 0.21 (95% CI: 0.03∼0.39). One study had sufficient statistical power to detect a small effect size and found that adding emotion regulation skills increased the effects of CBT. None of the other studies had enough power to detect an effect size smaller than g = 0.55. Only one study had low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available component studies do not have the statistical power nor the quality to draw any meaningful conclusion about key ingredients of psychotherapies for adult depression.
Entities:
Keywords:
additive study; component study; depression; dismantling study; meta-analysis; specific and nonspecific mechanisms
Authors: Sarah R Edmunds; Kyle M Frost; R Chris Sheldrick; Alice Bravo; Diondra Straiton; Katherine Pickard; Valerie Grim; Amy Drahota; Jocelyn Kuhn; Gazi Azad; Anamiguel Pomales Ramos; Brooke Ingersoll; Allison Wainer; Lisa V Ibanez; Wendy L Stone; Alice Carter; Sarabeth Broder-Fingert Journal: Autism Date: 2022-01-06
Authors: Andrada D Neacsiu; Lysianne Beynel; John P Powers; Steven T Szabo; Lawrence G Appelbaum; Sarah H Lisanby; Kevin S LaBar Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Toshi A Furukawa; Aya Suganuma; Edoardo G Ostinelli; Gerhard Andersson; Christopher G Beevers; Jason Shumake; Thomas Berger; Florien Willemijn Boele; Claudia Buntrock; Per Carlbring; Isabella Choi; Helen Christensen; Andrew Mackinnon; Jennifer Dahne; Marcus J H Huibers; David D Ebert; Louise Farrer; Nicholas R Forand; Daniel R Strunk; Iony D Ezawa; Erik Forsell; Viktor Kaldo; Anna Geraedts; Simon Gilbody; Elizabeth Littlewood; Sally Brabyn; Heather D Hadjistavropoulos; Luke H Schneider; Robert Johansson; Robin Kenter; Marie Kivi; Cecilia Björkelund; Annet Kleiboer; Heleen Riper; Jan Philipp Klein; Johanna Schröder; Björn Meyer; Steffen Moritz; Lara Bücker; Ove Lintvedt; Peter Johansson; Johan Lundgren; Jeannette Milgrom; Alan W Gemmill; David C Mohr; Jesus Montero-Marin; Javier Garcia-Campayo; Stephanie Nobis; Anna-Carlotta Zarski; Kathleen O'Moore; Alishia D Williams; Jill M Newby; Sarah Perini; Rachel Phillips; Justine Schneider; Wendy Pots; Nicole E Pugh; Derek Richards; Isabelle M Rosso; Scott L Rauch; Lisa B Sheeber; Jessica Smith; Viola Spek; Victor J Pop; Burçin Ünlü; Kim M P van Bastelaar; Sanne van Luenen; Nadia Garnefski; Vivian Kraaij; Kristofer Vernmark; Lisanne Warmerdam; Annemieke van Straten; Pavle Zagorscak; Christine Knaevelsrud; Manuel Heinrich; Clara Miguel; Andrea Cipriani; Orestis Efthimiou; Eirini Karyotaki; Pim Cuijpers Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 77.056
Authors: Jord J T Vink; Stefano Mandija; Petar I Petrov; Cornells A T van den Berg; Iris E C Sommer; Sebastiaan F W Neggers Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Emily A Holmes; Rory C O'Connor; V Hugh Perry; Irene Tracey; Simon Wessely; Louise Arseneault; Clive Ballard; Helen Christensen; Roxane Cohen Silver; Ian Everall; Tamsin Ford; Ann John; Thomas Kabir; Kate King; Ira Madan; Susan Michie; Andrew K Przybylski; Roz Shafran; Angela Sweeney; Carol M Worthman; Lucy Yardley; Katherine Cowan; Claire Cope; Matthew Hotopf; Ed Bullmore Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 27.083