Dataset Information

Allegiance Bias and Treatment Quality as Moderators of the Effectiveness of Humanistic Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In many countries, humanistic psychotherapy (HPT) is viewed as a broad psychotherapeutic approach and is accepted in health care systems. To qualify for reimbursement by health insurance in Germany, psychotherapy approaches have to be evaluated positively by the German Scientific Board of Psychotherapy (GSBP). The GSBP examined HPT and its subapproaches based on an application by a number of professional organizations affiliated with HPT (Work Group Humanistic Psychotherapy, WGHPT). The GSBP came to the decision that none of the HPT subapproaches provided sufficient evidence to be evaluated as evidence based. Potential reasons for the discrepancy between international recognition of HPT and GSBP's decision will be explored: researchers' allegiance may have led to a risk of bias disadvantaging HPT. Furthermore, the evaluation criteria of the GSBP did not systematically consider whether HPT was conceptualized bona fide and implemented with sufficient treatment integrity in the studies. OBJECTIVE:This systematic review will re-examine the studies included in the review of the GSBP. Within 2 comparisons (HPT vs control and HPT vs other psychotherapeutic interventions), we will examine moderating effects of treatment quality (bona fide and treatment integrity) and allegiance on the effectiveness of HPT. METHODS:This review is based on the prior systematic review by the GSBP. The GSBP examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies with non-RCTs of HPT interventions for individuals with mental disorders. All studies suggested by the WGHPT were included; moreover, the GSBP conducted searches in standard electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX) and handsearches in relevant systematic reviews and contacted experts. A total of 2 independent GSBP reviewers performed study screening using a structured form. On the basis of the prior work of the GSBP, all studies that were positively screened by the GSBP will be included in this review. Data will be extracted independently by 4 authors. Standardized mean difference will be calculated, and possible publication bias will be tested using funnel plots and Egger test. A priori defined subgroup or meta-regression analyses will be performed for treatment quality, allegiance, type of nonactive control, study quality, type of subapproach, and target population (children and adolescents or adults). RESULTS:The GSBP identified 115 eligible studies that will be reanalyzed in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS:Results about moderator effects of treatment quality and allegiance will provide important information about their impact on the evaluation of HPT and other psychotherapy approaches and can be used for further evaluation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019128983; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=128983. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/15140.

SUBMITTER: Schunemann O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6902128 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Allegiance Bias and Treatment Quality as Moderators of the Effectiveness of Humanistic Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Schünemann Olivia O Jansen Alessa A Willutzki Ulrike U Heinrichs Nina N

JMIR research protocols 20191125 11

<h4>Background</h4>In many countries, humanistic psychotherapy (HPT) is viewed as a broad psychotherapeutic approach and is accepted in health care systems. To qualify for reimbursement by health insurance in Germany, psychotherapy approaches have to be evaluated positively by the German Scientific Board of Psychotherapy (GSBP). The GSBP examined HPT and its subapproaches based on an application by a number of professional organizations affiliated with HPT (Work Group Humanistic Psychotherapy, W ...[more]

PMID: 31763989

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) is an intervention that has established efficacy in the prevention and treatment of depressive disorders. Previous systematic reviews have not evaluated the effectiveness of IPT on symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression, quality of life, relationship satisfaction/quality, social supports, and an improved psychological sense of well-being. There is limited data regarding factors that moderate and mediate the effectiveness of IPT including the timing of the intervention or the mode of delivery of IPT intervention. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of IPT interventions to treat perinatal psychological distress and to summarize the evidence on predictors, mediators, and moderators of IPT.MethodsWe will include peer-reviewed studies that recruited perinatal women. The search strategy will involve the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), CINAHL with Full Text (EBSCO), Social Work Abstracts (EBSCO), SocINDEX with Full Text (EBSCO), Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), Family & Society Studies Worldwide (EBSCO), Family Studies Abstracts (EBSCO), and Scopus. Study inclusion criteria include (1) randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and pre-post studies that evaluated the effectiveness of IPT; (2) qualitative studies that evaluated feasibility and acceptability of IPT; (3) study sample included and analyzed perinatal women; and (4) publication language was English. Using pilot-tested screening and data extraction forms, two reviewers will independently review studies in three steps: (1) abstract/title screening, (2) full-text screening of potentially accepted studies, and (3) data extraction of accepted studies. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Studies will be aggregated for meta-synthesis and meta-analysis should the data allow for this. Two independent reviewers will grade methodological quality.DiscussionFindings from this review will inform future development and implementation of IPT intervention research for perinatal women. Identifying key factors of successful IPT interventions will inform intervention design and adaptation of IPT interventions to increase the likelihood that perinatal women will engage in and benefit from IPT interventions. This review will also identify key considerations for increasing the effectiveness of IPT interventions during the perinatal period.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019114292.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common degenerative spine disease associated with a strong impairment in various quality of life areas, particularly the ability to perform work-related activity. Depression is a condition frequently associated. There is no comprehensive review on quality of life and objective functional impairment in LSS. This paper presents the protocol of the first systematic review and meta-analysis summarising evidence about quality of life and functional impairment in patients with LSS compared with healthy controls. Comorbid depressive disorders, age, gender, LSS duration, disability, pain severity and study methodological quality will be investigated as moderators. METHODS:The protocol is reported according to PRISMA-P guidelines. Studies will be included if they were conducted on patients aged 18 years old or older with primary LSS and if they reported data on differences in the levels of quality of life or objective functional impairment between patients with LSS and healthy controls. Independent reviewers will search published/unpublished studies through electronic databases and additional sources, will extract the data and assess the methodological quality. Random-effects meta-analysis will be carried out by calculating effect sizes as Cohen's d indices. Heterogeneity will be examined by the I 2 and the Q statistics. Moderators will be investigated through meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS:A summary of the evidence on quality of life and functional impairment in LSS may suggest clinical and occupational health medicine strategies aimed to timely detect and prevent these outcomes. Higher percentages of patients with LSS with depression may be expected to be related to poorer quality of life. Depressive comorbidity might impact negatively on quality of life because it is associated with dysfunctional coping, disability and psychophysiological symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The current review does not require ethics approval. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals. REVIEW REGISTRATION:CRD42019132209.

Project description:IntroductionOne potential source of bias in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is researcher allegiance (RA). The operationalisation of RA differs strongly across studies, and there is not a generally accepted method of operationalising or measuring it. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to how RA affects the outcomes of trials and if it results in better outcomes for a preferred intervention. The aim of this project is to develop and validate a scale that accurately identifies RA, contribute to the understanding of the impact that RA has in a research setting and to make recommendations for addressing RA in practice.Methods and analysisA scale will first be developed and validated to measure RA in psychotherapy trials. The scale will be validated by surveying authors of psychotherapy trials to assess their opinions, beliefs and preferences of psychotherapy interventions. Furthermore, the scale will be validated for use outside the field of psychotherapy. The validated checklist will then be used to examine two potential mechanisms of how RA may affect outcomes of interventions: publication bias (by assessing grants) and risk of bias (RoB). Finally, recommendations will be developed, and a feasibility study will be conducted at a national mental health agency in The Netherlands. Main analyses comprise inter-rater reliability of checklist items, correlations to examine the relationship between checklist items and author survey (convergent validity) as well as checklist items and trial outcomes and multivariate meta-regression techniques to assess potential mechanisms of how allegiance affects trial outcomes (publication bias and RoB).Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and approved by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board (VCWE) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Study result and advancements will also be published on the Open Science Framework. Furthermore, main findings will be disseminated through articles in international peer-reviewed open access journals. Results and recommendations will be communicated to the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration and other funding agencies.

Project description:ObjectiveAs patients and family caregivers are increasingly viewed as a dyadic whole, growing studies have emerged that identify ways to improve the two parties' emotional distress. However, the specific effectiveness, quality, and optimal intervention details of these studies are unclear. Our objective is to synthesize the effectiveness of existing dyadic interventions for improving the psychological distress of cancer patient-caregiver dyads and identify potential moderators that influence intervention effectiveness.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase, and Clinical Trials were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials from inception until June 2021. Two reviewers performed the process independently. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment. We calculated effect sizes (Hedges' adjusted g) by standard mean difference. Potential moderators influencing the intervention effects were explored.ResultsWe included 28 articles, of which 12 were available for meta-analysis. In total, 4784 participants were included, who were primarily middle-aged (M = 58 years old), with the highest proportion reporting a diagnosis of "mixed cancer" (30%). Patients' anxiety (g = -0.31; 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.12; P = 0.001; I 2 = 17%) and cancer-related distress (g = -0.32; 95% CI: -0.46 to -0.18; P < 0.0001; I 2 = 0%) were statistically significantly improved from baseline to post-intervention. Interventionist, delivery type, duration, and frequency were potential moderators for psychosocial interventions on negative emotions.ConclusionsFace-to-face, relatively shorter interventions led by psychologists in moderator analysis seem to have better performance. Cancer dyad-based interventions were efficacious in improving the emotional distress of both parties in the dyad, but the effect was more apparent in patients than in family caregivers. However, the long-term effects were modest for both groups.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the long term, smoking cessation can decrease the risk of cancer, stroke, and heart attacks and improve overall survival. The aim of the proposed umbrella review is to summarize existing systematic reviews that assessed the effects of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation and to evaluate the methodological quality of previously conducted systematic reviews. METHODS:Databases such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHIL PsychINFO Web of Science, Conference Papers Index, Scopus, and Google Scholar will be used to retrieve reviews. Systematic reviews which included only randomized control trials will be considered in this review. The primary outcome will be prolonged abstinence from smoking for a minimum of 6 months follow-up, and the secondary outcome will be point abstinence rate from smoking of less than 6 months follow-up but more than 7?days. Methodological quality of the included reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool, which contains 16 domains. Two authors will screen the titles and abstracts of all reviews obtained by the search strategy, assess the full text of selected articles for inclusion, and extract data independently. The quality appraisal will be also assessed by two authors (AM, CC) independently, and Cohen's Kappa statistic will be used to assess inter-ratter agreement. The findings of the study will be narrated qualitatively to describe the effect of different pharmacotherapy on smoking cessation. DISCUSSION:The World Health Organization recommends treatment of tobacco dependence as one approach in its comprehensive tobacco control policy. To date, many trials and systematic reviews have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Therefore, the findings of the umbrella review will improve clinical decision-making and be used as a baseline for future studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017080906.

Dataset Information

Allegiance Bias and Treatment Quality as Moderators of the Effectiveness of Humanistic Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Allegiance Bias and Treatment Quality as Moderators of the Effectiveness of Humanistic Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets