5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The effectiveness of psychodynamic psychotherapies: An update

      1
      World Psychiatry
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper provides a comprehensive review of outcome studies and meta-analyses of effectiveness studies of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) for the major categories of mental disorders. Comparisons with inactive controls (waitlist, treatment as usual and placebo) generally but by no means invariably show PDT to be effective for depression, some anxiety disorders, eating disorders and somatic disorders. There is little evidence to support its implementation for post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, cocaine dependence or psychosis. The strongest current evidence base supports relatively long-term psychodynamic treatment of some personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. Comparisons with active treatments rarely identify PDT as superior to control interventions and studies are generally not appropriately designed to provide tests of statistical equivalence. Studies that demonstrate inferiority of PDT to alternatives exist, but are small in number and often questionable in design. Reviews of the field appear to be subject to allegiance effects. The present review recommends abandoning the inherently conservative strategy of comparing heterogeneous "families" of therapies for heterogeneous diagnostic groups. Instead, it advocates using the opportunities provided by bioscience and computational psychiatry to creatively explore and assess the value of protocol-directed combinations of specific treatment components to address the key problems of individual patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references209

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The p Factor: One General Psychopathology Factor in the Structure of Psychiatric Disorders?

          Mental disorders traditionally have been viewed as distinct, episodic, and categorical conditions. This view has been challenged by evidence that many disorders are sequentially comorbid, recurrent/chronic, and exist on a continuum. Using the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, we examined the structure of psychopathology, taking into account dimensionality, persistence, co-occurrence, and sequential comorbidity of mental disorders across 20 years, from adolescence to midlife. Psychiatric disorders were initially explained by three higher-order factors (Internalizing, Externalizing, and Thought Disorder) but explained even better with one General Psychopathology dimension. We have called this dimension the p factor because it conceptually parallels a familiar dimension in psychological science: the g factor of general intelligence. Higher p scores are associated with more life impairment, greater familiality, worse developmental histories, and more compromised early-life brain function. The p factor explains why it is challenging to find causes, consequences, biomarkers, and treatments with specificity to individual mental disorders. Transdiagnostic approaches may improve research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Randomized clinical trial comparing family-based treatment with adolescent-focused individual therapy for adolescents with anorexia nervosa.

            Evidence-based treatment trials for adolescents with anorexia nervosa are few. To evaluate the relative efficacy of family-based treatment (FBT) and adolescent-focused individual therapy (AFT) for adolescents with anorexia nervosa in full remission. Randomized controlled trial. Stanford University and The University of Chicago (April 2005 until March 2009). One hundred twenty-one participants, aged 12 through 18 years, with DSM-IV diagnosis of anorexia nervosa excluding the amenorrhea requirement. Intervention Twenty-four outpatient hours of treatment over 12 months of FBT or AFT. Participants were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (EOT), and 6 months' and 12 months' follow-up posttreatment. Full remission from anorexia nervosa defined as normal weight (≥95% of expected for sex, age, and height) and mean global Eating Disorder Examination score within 1 SD of published means. Secondary outcome measures included partial remission rates (>85% of expected weight for height plus those who were in full remission) and changes in body mass index percentile and eating-related psychopathology. There were no differences in full remission between treatments at EOT. However, at both the 6- and 12-month follow-up, FBT was significantly superior to AFT on this measure. Family-based treatment was significantly superior for partial remission at EOT but not at follow-up. In addition, body mass index percentile at EOT was significantly superior for FBT, but this effect was not found at follow-up. Participants in FBT also had greater changes in Eating Disorder Examination score at EOT than those in AFT, but there were no differences at follow-up. Although both treatments led to considerable improvement and were similarly effective in producing full remission at EOT, FBT was more effective in facilitating full remission at both follow-up points. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00149786.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The RDoC framework: facilitating transition from ICD/DSM to dimensional approaches that integrate neuroscience and psychopathology.

              In 2008, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) included in its new Strategic Plan the following aim: "Develop, for research purposes, new ways of classifying mental disorders based on dimensions of observable behavior and neurobiological measures". The implementation of this aim was named the Research Domain Criteria project, or RDoC. RDoC is a programmatic initiative that will fund grants, contracts, early-phase trials, and similar activities for the purpose of generating studies to build a research literature that can inform future versions of psychiatric nosologies based upon neuroscience and behavioral science rather than descriptive phenomenology. RDoC departs markedly from the DSM and ICD processes, in which extensive workgroup meetings generate final and finely-honed sets of diagnoses that are modified in field tests only if problems with clinical utility arise. Rather, in keeping with its provenance as an experimental system, the RDoC provides a framework for conducting research in terms of fundamental circuit-based behavioral dimensions that cut across traditional diagnostic categories. While an important aim of the project is to validate particular dimensions as useful for eventual clinical work, an equally important goal is to provide information and experience about how to conceive and implement such an alternative approach to future diagnostic practices that can harness genetics and neuroscience in the service of more effective treatment and prevention. This paper summarizes the rationale for the RDoC project, its essential features, and potential methods of transitioning from DSM/ICD categories to dimensionally-oriented designs in research studies. Copyright © 2014 World Psychiatric Association.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                World Psychiatry
                World Psychiatry
                Wiley
                17238617
                June 2015
                June 2015
                June 04 2015
                : 14
                : 2
                : 137-150
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology; University College London, and The Anna Freud Centre; London UK
                Article
                10.1002/wps.20235
                4471961
                26043322
                2ec54b8b-1808-4400-a035-7cc37ea24010
                © 2015

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article