Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2019 (4) (remove)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- psychotherapy (3)
- adherence (2)
- assessment (2)
- Clinical supervision (1)
- Evidence-based psychotherapy (1)
- Supervision (1)
- Systematic review (1)
- competency (1)
- mental disorders (1)
- meta-analysis (1)
- metacognition (1)
- process research (1)
- skill (1)
- systematic review (1)
- therapist competence (1)
Institute
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.
Although the observation and assessment of psychotherapeutic competences are central to training, supervision, patient care, quality control, and life-long practice, structured instruments are used only occasionally. In the current study, an observation-based tool for the Assessment of Core CBT Skills (ACCS) was translated into German and adapted, and its psychometric properties were pilot evaluated. Competence of therapists-in-training was assessed in a random sample of n = 30 videos on cognitive behavioural therapy including patients diagnosed with hypochondriasis. Two of three raters independently assessed the competences demonstrated in the entire, active treatment sessions (n = 60). In our sample, internal consistency was excellent, and interrater reliability was good. Convergent validity (Cognitive Therapy Scale) and discriminant validity (Helping Alliance Questionnaire) were within the expected ranges. The ACCS total score did not significantly predict the reduction of symptoms of hypochondriasis, and a one-factorial structure of the instrument was found. By providing multiple opportunities for feedback, self-reflection, and supervision, the ACCS may complement current tools for the assessment of psychotherapeutic competences and importantly support competence-based training and supervision.
Background: Although clinical supervision is considered to be a major component of the development and maintenance of psychotherapeutic competencies, and despite an increase in supervision research, the empirical evidence on the topic remains sparse.
Methods: Because most previous reviews lack methodological rigor, we aimed to review the status and quality of the empirical literature on clinical supervision, and to provide suggestions for future research. MEDLINE, PsycInfo and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched and the review was conducted according to current guidelines. From the review results, we derived suggestions for future research on clinical supervision.
Results: The systematic literature search identified 19 publications from 15 empirical studies. Taking into account the review results, the following suggestions for further research emerged: Supervision research would benefit from proper descriptions of how studies are conducted according to current guidelines, more methodologically rigorous empirical studies, the investigation of active supervision interventions, from taking diverse outcome domains into account, and from investigating supervision from a meta-theoretical perspective.
Conclusions: In all, the systematic review supported the notion that supervision research often lags behind psychotherapy research in general. Still, the results offer detailed starting points for further supervision research.
Assessments of psychotherapeutic competencies play a crucial role in research and training. However, research on the reliability and validity of such assessments is sparse. This study aimed to provide an overview of the current evidence and to provide an average interrater reliability (IRR) of psychotherapeutic competence ratings. A systematic review was conducted, and 20 studies reported in 32 publications were collected. These 20 studies were included in a narrative synthesis, and 20 coefficients were entered into the meta-analysis. Most primary studies referred to cognitive-behavioral therapies and the treatment of depression, used the Cognitive Therapy Scale, based ratings on videos, and trained the raters. Our meta-analysis revealed a pooled ICC of 0.82, but at the same time severe heterogeneity. The evidence map highlighted a variety of variables related to competence assessments. Further aspects influencing the reliability of competence ratings and regarding the considerable heterogeneity are discussed in detail throughout the manuscript.