The Recovery Process for Individuals With Schizophrenia in the Context of Evidence-Based Psychotherapy and Rehabilitation

Abstract. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), META Cognitive Therapy (MCT), Metacognitive Training (MCTR), Metacognitive Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT), of various rehabilitation programs and of recovery programs in schizophrenia. Medline/Pubmed was searched for studies published in English from January 2010 to August 2018, which were screened against inclusion criteria by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated by two independent raters, which are the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool for quantitative studies and the fidelity criteria. The study included 41 RCTs and 12 case studies with n = 3,059 persons with schizophrenia. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) proved to be superior in terms of the improvement of primary and secondary outcomes. MCT decreased positive symptoms and improved metacognitive capacity and insight. MCTR reduced positive symptoms and socially disruptive behavior. MERIT improved metacognitive capacity and insight. Rehabilitation programs were efficacious in the improvement of cognition, symptoms, and functional outcome. The recovery programs enhanced illness-management knowledge, attitudes toward medication and insights related to negative symptoms. It is recommended to combine the above evidence based psychotherapeutic interventions. Limitations of this systematic review are discussed toward the end of the essay. Some important factors have to be considered in the future have been mentioned.

Download Full-text

Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine ◽

10.2190/pm.43.2.c ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 43 (2) ◽

pp. 129-151 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽

Ranak B. Trivedi ◽

Jennifer McDuffie ◽

Ian Kronish ◽

Dinesh Benjamin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Problem Solving ◽

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Behavioral Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cognitive Behavioral ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Brief Psychotherapy ◽

Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

Download Full-text

Meta-analysis and Meta-regression of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp) Across Time: The Effectiveness of CBTp has Improved for Delusions

Schizophrenia Bulletin Open ◽

10.1093/schizbullopen/sgaa023 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Katarzyna Sitko ◽

Bridgette M Bewick ◽

David Owens ◽

Ciara Masterson

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽

Negative Symptoms ◽

Behavioral Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cognitive Behavioral ◽

Psychotic Symptoms ◽

Positive Symptoms ◽

Medium Effects ◽

Treatment As Usual ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Published research shows small-to-medium effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp) on reducing psychotic symptoms. Given the on-going development of CBTp interventions, the aim of this systematic review is to examine whether the effectiveness of CBTp has changed across time. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized controlled trials examining CBTp interventions targeting positive and/or negative symptoms vs treatment as usual. Four meta-analyses were carried out to examine the effectiveness of CBTp for: positive symptoms; delusions; hallucinations; and negative symptoms. Four meta-regressions examined whether the effectiveness of CBTp changed across time for these groups of symptoms. A total of 28 studies (n = 2698) yielded a pooled g of −0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.32, −0.16, P < .001) favoring CBTp for positive symptoms, with nonsignificant heterogeneity (Q = 26.87, P = .47; I2 =0%); 13 studies (n = 890) yielded a pooled g of −0.36 (95% CI −0.59, −0.13, P = .002) for delusions, with substantial heterogeneity (Q = 31.99, P = .001; I2 =62%); 16 studies (n = 849) yielded a pooled g of −0.26 (95% CI −0.42, −0.11, P < .001) for hallucinations, with nonsignificant heterogeneity (Q = 18.10, P = .26; I2 =17%); 19 studies (n = 1761) yielded a pooled g of −0.22 (95% CI −0.33, −0.12, P < .001) for negative symptoms, with nonsignificant heterogeneity (Q = 20.32, P = .32, I2 =11%). Meta-regressions indicated a significant effect of year on the effectiveness of CBTp only for delusions (F[1, 11] = 5.99, P = .032; R2 = 0.594); methodological quality did not effect this finding. Findings indicate small-to-medium effects of CBTp for psychotic symptoms, with increasing effectiveness across time for delusions.

Download Full-text

349 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Patients with Chronic Pain - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

SLEEP ◽

10.1093/sleep/zsab072.348 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. A139-A140

Author(s):

Janannii Selvanathan ◽

Chi Pham ◽

Mahesh Nagappa ◽

Philip Peng ◽

Marina Englesakis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽

Cancer Pain ◽

Behavioral Therapy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Post Treatment ◽

Cognitive Behavioral ◽

Comorbid Insomnia ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction Patients with chronic non-cancer pain often report insomnia as a significant comorbidity. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is recommended as the first line of treatment for insomnia, and several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of CBT-I on various health outcomes in patients with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT-I on sleep, pain, depression, anxiety and fatigue in adults with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. Methods A systematic search was conducted using ten electronic databases. The duration of the search was set between database inception to April 2020. Included studies must be RCTs assessing the effects of CBT-I on at least patient-reported sleep outcomes in adults with chronic non-cancer pain. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and Yates quality rating scale. Continuous data were extracted and summarized using standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The literature search resulted in 7,772 articles, of which 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of these articles were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis comprised 762 participants. CBT-I demonstrated a large significant effect on patient-reported sleep (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI [0.55–1.20], p < 0.00001) at post-treatment and final follow-up (up to 9 months) (0.59 [0.31–0.86], p < 0.0001); and moderate effects on pain (SMD = 0.20 [0.06, 0.34], p = 0.006) and depression (0.44 [0.09–0.79], p= 0.01) at post-treatment. The probability of improving sleep and pain following CBT-I at post-treatment was 81% and 58%, respectively. The probability of improving sleep and pain at final follow-up was 73% and 57%, respectively. There were no statistically significant effects on anxiety and fatigue. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT-I is effective for improving sleep in adults with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. Further, CBT-I may lead to short-term moderate improvements in pain and depression. However, there is a need for further RCTs with adequate power, longer follow-up periods, CBT for both insomnia and pain, and consistent scoring systems for assessing patient outcomes. Support (if any):

Download Full-text