@misc{BruettMeisterBerngesetal.2017,
  author    = {Br{\"u}tt, Anna Levke and Meister, Ramona and Bernges, Tabea and Moritz, Steffen and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Kriston, Levente and K{\"u}hne, Franziska},
  title     = {Patient involvement in a systematic review},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualit{\"a}t im Gesundheitswesen},
  volume    = {127-128},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualit{\"a}t im Gesundheitswesen},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Jena},
  issn      = {1865-9217},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.zefq.2017.07.005},
  pages     = {56 -- 61},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Patient involvement (PI) in research is increasingly required as a means to improve relevance and meaningfulness of research results. PI has been widely promoted by the National Institute for Health Research in England in the last years. In Germany, widespread involvement of patients in research is still missing. The methods used to realize PI have been developed mainly in English research contexts, and detailed information on how to involve patients in systematic reviews is rare. Therefore, the aim of the study was that patients contribute and prioritize clinically relevant outcomes to a systematic review on meta-cognitive interventions, and to evaluate a patient workshop as well as patients' perceptions of research involvement. Seven patients with experience in psychiatric care participated in our workshop. They focused on outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol (e.g., meta-cognitive or cognitive changes, symptomatology, quality of life), neglected other outcomes (like satisfaction with treatment, acceptability), and added relevant new ones (e.g., scope of action/autonomy, applicability). Altogether, they valued the explicit workshop participation positively. However, some suggested to involve patients at an earlier stage and to adapt the amount of information given. Further systematic reviews would benefit from the involvement of patients in the definition of other components of the review question (like patients or interventions), in the interpretation of key findings or in drafting a lay summary.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KuehneAyOtterbecketal.2018,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Ay, Destina Sevde and Otterbeck, Mara Jasmin and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Standardized Patients in Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy},
  series = {Academic psychiatry},
  volume    = {42},
  journal   = {Academic psychiatry},
  number    = {6},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {1042-9670},
  doi       = {10.1007/s40596-018-0886-6},
  pages     = {773 -- 781},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {ObjectivesThe use of simulated and standardized patients (SP) is widely accepted in the medical field and, from there, is beginning to disseminate into clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The purpose of this study was therefore to systematically review barriers and facilitators that should be considered in the implementation of SP interventions specific to clinical psychology and psychotherapy.MethodsFollowing current guidelines, a scoping review was conducted. The literature search focused on the MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases, including Dissertation Abstracts International. After screening for titles and abstracts, full texts were screened independently and in duplicate according to our inclusion criteria. For data extraction, a pre-defined form was piloted and used. Units of meaning with respect to barriers and facilitators were extracted and categorized inductively using content-analysis techniques. From the results, a matrix of interconnections and a network graph were compiled.ResultsThe 41 included publications were mainly in the fields of psychiatry and mental health nursing, as well as in training and education. The detailed category system contrasts four supercategories, i.e., which organizational and economic aspects to consider, which persons to include as eligible SPs, how to develop adequate scenarios, and how to authentically and consistently portray mental health patients.ConclusionsPublications focused especially on the interrelation between authenticity and consistency of portrayals, on how to evoke empathy in learners, and on economic and training aspects. A variety of recommendations for implementing SP programs, from planning to training, monitoring, and debriefing, is provided, for example, ethical screening of and ongoing support for SPs.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KuehneMaasWiesenthaletal.2017,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Maas, Jana and Wiesenthal, Sophia and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Supervision in der Verhaltenstherapie},
  series = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie : Forschung und Praxis},
  volume    = {46},
  journal   = {Zeitschrift f{\"u}r klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie : Forschung und Praxis},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Hogrefe},
  address   = {G{\"o}ttingen},
  issn      = {1616-3443},
  doi       = {10.1026/1616-3443/a000414},
  pages     = {73 -- 82},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Theoretischer Hintergrund:Supervision spielt eine zentrale Rolle zum Wissens- und Kompetenzerwerb sowie in der Qualit{\"a}tssicherung. Fragestellung:Ziel war es, den aktuellen Forschungsstand zur Supervision im Rahmen der kognitiven Verhaltenstherapie abzubilden, um daraus Schlussfolgerungen f{\"u}r die zuk{\"u}nftige Forschung abzuleiten. Methode:Zur Evidenzsynthese wurde ein Scoping Review durchgef{\"u}hrt, das die Darstellung zentraler Konzepte, aktueller Evidenz und m{\"o}glicher Forschungsbedarfe erm{\"o}glichte. Neben einer systematischen Literaturrecherche wurden Vorw{\"a}rts- und R{\"u}ckw{\"a}rtssuchstrategien eingesetzt. Ergebnisse:Eingeschlossen wurden zw{\"o}lf Publikationen basierend auf zehn empirischen Studien. Alle Studien beschrieben Ausbildungssettings, aber nur wenige untersuchten {\"u}bende Interventionen (z. B. Rollenspiele). H{\"a}ufig wurden Effekte subjektiv erfasst, die methodische Qualit{\"a}t der Begleitstudien variierte. Schlussfolgerungen:Notwendig sind weitere methodisch hochwertige Studien, experimentell orientiert oder in der klinischen Praxis, die die Supervisionsforschung bereichern k{\"o}nnen.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{KuehneMeindersMohretal.2016,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Meinders, C. and Mohr, H. and Hafenbrack, K. and Kieseritzky, K. and Rosenberger, C. and Haerter, M. and Schulz-Kindermann, F. and Klinger, R. and Nestoriuc, A. Y.},
  title     = {Psychological treatments for pain in cancer patients. A systematic review on the current state of research},
  series = {Der Schmerz : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes, der {\~A}-sterreichischen Schmerzgesellschaft und der Deutschen Interdisziplin{\~A}\iren Vereinigung f{\~A}¼r Schmerztherapie},
  volume    = {30},
  journal   = {Der Schmerz : Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft zum Studium des Schmerzes, der {\~A}-sterreichischen Schmerzgesellschaft und der Deutschen Interdisziplin{\~A}\iren Vereinigung f{\~A}¼r Schmerztherapie},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0932-433X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00482-016-0169-7},
  pages     = {496 -- 509},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {In cancer patients, pain is one of the main symptoms and especially in the late stages of disease, these symptoms can be associated with considerable suffering. In psycho-oncology, preliminary psychological therapies targeting cancer pain have been tested; however, a systematic review of available interventions is lacking, especially considering their dissemination, evidence base, study quality, and the comparison with established treatments. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to systematically review the current research on psychological treatments for pain in cancer patients. During May 2014, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, and CENTRAL databases were searched. Psychological treatments for pain in adult cancer patients studied in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and referring to pain as primary or secondary outcome were included. After examination for inclusion, structured data extraction and assessment followed. Data were synthesized narratively. In the review, 32 RCTs were included. Studies mainly referred to patients with breast cancer or patients in earlier stages of the disease. The methodological quality of included studies was heterogeneous. Most commonly, short interventions were delivered by nurses in out-patient settings. Interventions including education and relaxation techniques were utilized most often, followed by interventions with behavioral or cognitive components. A need for research persists regarding efficacy of current psychotherapeutic interventions, or the role of mediator variables (e. g., coping) on pain perception in cancer patients. Studies with high methodological quality which comprehensively and transparently report on interventions and designs are lacking.},
  language  = {de}
}
@misc{PhilippKristonLanioetal.2019,
  author    = {Philipp, Rebecca and Kriston, Levente and Lanio, Jana and K{\"u}hne, Franziska and H{\"a}rter, Martin and Moritz, Steffen and Meister, Ramona},
  title     = {Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults-A systematic review and meta-analysis (METACOG)},
  series = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Clinical psychology \& psychotherapy},
  number    = {2},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1063-3995},
  doi       = {10.1002/cpp.2345},
  pages     = {227 -- 240},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {We evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders. We searched electronic databases and included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing metacognitive interventions with other treatments in adults with mental disorders. Primary effectiveness and acceptability outcomes were symptom severity and dropout, respectively. We performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified Metacognitive Training (MCTrain), Metacognitive Therapy (MCTherap), and Metacognition Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT). We included 49 trials with 2,609 patients. In patients with schizophrenia, MCTrain was more effective than a psychological treatment (cognitive remediation, SMD = -0.39). It bordered significance when compared with standard or other psychological treatments. In a post hoc analysis, across all studies, the pooled effect was significant (SMD = -0.31). MCTrain was more effective than standard treatment in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (SMD = -0.40). MCTherap was more effective than a waitlist in patients with depression (SMD = -2.80), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD = -2.36), and psychological treatments (cognitive-behavioural) in patients with anxiety (SMD = -0.46). In patients with depression, MCTherap was not superior to psychological treatment (cognitive-behavioural). For MERIT, the database was too small to allow solid conclusions. Acceptability of metacognitive interventions among patients was high on average. Methodological quality was mostly unclear or moderate. Metacognitive interventions are likely to be effective in alleviating symptom severity in mental disorders. Although their add-on value against existing psychological interventions awaits to be established, potential advantages are their low threshold and economy.},
  language  = {en}
}