@article{MaassKuehneMaasetal.2020,
  author    = {Maaß, Ulrike and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Maas, Jana and Unverdross, Maria and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Psychological interventions for health anxiety and somatic symptoms},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Psychologie = Journal of psychology},
  volume    = {228},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Psychologie = Journal of psychology},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Hogrefe},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {2190-8370},
  doi       = {10.1027/2151-2604/a000400},
  pages     = {68 -- 80},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {This study examined the effectiveness of psychological interventions for severe health anxiety (SHA) regarding somatic symptoms (SS) and health anxiety (HA). The databases Web of Science, EBSCO, and CENTRAL were searched on May 15, 2019, May 16, 2019, and August 5, 2019, respectively. Eighteen randomized controlled trials (N = 2,050) met the inclusion criteria (i.e., hypochondriasis, illness anxiety disorder or somatic symptom disorder with elevated HA being assessed with validated interviews: use of standardized outcome measures). Two reviewers independently evaluated the studies' risk of bias using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomized trials (RoB-2) tool. Overall, psychological interventions were significantly more effective than waitlist, treatment-as-usual, or placebo post-treatment (g(SS) = 0.70, g(HA) = 1.11) and at follow-up (g(SS) = 0.33, g(HA)= 0.70). CBT outperformed other psychological interventions or pharmacotherapy for HA post- treatment (Hedge's g(HA) = 0.81). The number of sessions did not significantly predict the effect sizes. In sum, psychological interventions were effective for SHA, but the generalizability of the results for SS is limited, because only two high-quatity trials contributed to the comparison.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WagnerRosenbergHofmannetal.2020,
  author    = {Wagner, Birgit and Rosenberg, Nicole and Hofmann, Laura and Maaß, Ulrike},
  title     = {Web-based bereavement care},
  series = {Frontiers in psychiatry},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Frontiers in psychiatry},
  publisher = {Frontiers Media},
  address   = {Lausanne},
  issn      = {1664-0640},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00525},
  pages     = {13},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: Web-based interventions have been introduced as novel and effective treatments for mental disorders and, in recent years, specifically for the bereaved. However, a systematic summary of the effectiveness of online interventions for people experiencing bereavement is still missing. Objective: A systematic literature search was conducted by four reviewers who reviewed and meta-analytically summarized the evidence for web-based interventions for bereaved people. Methods: Systematic searches (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, Medline, and CINAHL) resulted in seven randomized controlled trials (N= 1,257) that addressed adults having experienced bereavement using internet-based interventions. We used random effects models to summarize treatment effects for between-group comparisons (treatmentvs.control at post) and stability over time (postvs.follow-up). Results: All web-based interventions were based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In comparison with control groups, the interventions showed moderate (g= .54) to large effects (g= .86) for symptoms of grief and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), respectively. The effect for depression was small (g= .44). All effects were stable over time. A higher number of treatment sessions achieved higher effects for grief symptoms and more individual feedback increased effects for depression. Other moderators (i.e.dropout rate, time since loss, exposure) did not significantly reduce moderate degrees of heterogeneity between the studies. Limitations: The number of includable studies was low in this review resulting to lower power for moderator analyses in particular. Conclusions: Overall, the results of web-based bereavement interventions are promising, and its low-threshold approach might reduce barriers to bereavement care. Nonetheless, future research should further examine potential moderators and specific treatment components (e.g.exposure, feedback) and compare interventions with active controls.},
  language  = {en}
}