Focusing on Patients' Existing Resources and Strengths in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Psychodynamic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

TY - JOUR

T1 - Focusing on Patients' Existing Resources and Strengths in Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Psychodynamic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Munder, Thomas

AU - Karcher, Anna

AU - Yadikar, Öznur

AU - Szeles, Tanja

AU - Gumz, Antje

PY - 2019/6

Y1 - 2019/6

N2 - Objectives: Integrating a stronger focus on patients' existing strengths in traditional psychotherapy approaches is suggested by recent developments in psychological science, positive psychology, and psychotherapy research. However, the empirical status of treatments focusing on patients' existing strengths is unclear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42017054362) of studies on adaptations of traditional treatment approaches (e. g., cognitive-behavior therapy or psychodynamic therapy) explicitly focused on using patients' existing resources and strengths (hereafter, resource-focused treatments; RFT). Methods: Extensive systematic literature search yielded k = 11 treatment comparisons from 10 studies contrasting RFTs with either an alternative psychotherapeutic approach or wait list. Effect sizes controlling for pre-treatment differences (gPPWC) and standard Hedges's g effect sizes (gPOWC) were aggregated with random-effects methods Results: Across 8 direct comparisons, RFTs were superior to other psychotherapeutic approaches, as indicated by small to moderate (gPPWC = -0.349, 95 % CI -0.576, -0.122, p = .003, I2 = 46.50 %) and small effect sizes (gPOWC = -0.190, 95 % CI -0.355, -0.025, p = .024, I2 = 0.00 %) in favor of RFTs. Sensitivity analyses corroborated results. Many included studies were characterized by limited sample size, risk of bias or researcher allegiance. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed preliminary evidence for the benefits of RFTs and suggests an intensification of further research efforts. The evidence was most convincing for hypnotherapeutic-systemic interventions as an add-on for cognitive-behavioral therapy.

AB - Objectives: Integrating a stronger focus on patients' existing strengths in traditional psychotherapy approaches is suggested by recent developments in psychological science, positive psychology, and psychotherapy research. However, the empirical status of treatments focusing on patients' existing strengths is unclear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42017054362) of studies on adaptations of traditional treatment approaches (e. g., cognitive-behavior therapy or psychodynamic therapy) explicitly focused on using patients' existing resources and strengths (hereafter, resource-focused treatments; RFT). Methods: Extensive systematic literature search yielded k = 11 treatment comparisons from 10 studies contrasting RFTs with either an alternative psychotherapeutic approach or wait list. Effect sizes controlling for pre-treatment differences (gPPWC) and standard Hedges's g effect sizes (gPOWC) were aggregated with random-effects methods Results: Across 8 direct comparisons, RFTs were superior to other psychotherapeutic approaches, as indicated by small to moderate (gPPWC = -0.349, 95 % CI -0.576, -0.122, p = .003, I2 = 46.50 %) and small effect sizes (gPOWC = -0.190, 95 % CI -0.355, -0.025, p = .024, I2 = 0.00 %) in favor of RFTs. Sensitivity analyses corroborated results. Many included studies were characterized by limited sample size, risk of bias or researcher allegiance. Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed preliminary evidence for the benefits of RFTs and suggests an intensification of further research efforts. The evidence was most convincing for hypnotherapeutic-systemic interventions as an add-on for cognitive-behavioral therapy.

KW - Adaptation, Psychological

KW - Behavioral Research/trends

KW - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

KW - Humans

KW - Patients/psychology

KW - Psychotherapy, Psychodynamic

U2 - 10.13109/zptm.2019.65.2.144

DO - 10.13109/zptm.2019.65.2.144

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 31154930

VL - 65

SP - 144

EP - 161

JO - Z PSYCHOSOM MED PSYC

JF - Z PSYCHOSOM MED PSYC

SN - 1438-3608

IS - 2

ER -