Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (31) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (24)
- Review (5)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
- Other (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (31)
Keywords
- psychotherapy (10)
- assessment (4)
- systematic review (4)
- therapist competence (4)
- mental disorders (3)
- meta-analysis (3)
- psychotherapy process (3)
- psychotherapy training (3)
- training (3)
- Fragebogen (2)
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.
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.
Der Leserbrief fokussiert in weiten Teilen auf das Gutachterwesen, weshalb wir ausschließlich auf die inhaltlichen Punkte im Zusammenhang mit unserer Arbeit eingehen. Untersucht wurden schmerzpsychologische Interventionen, wie beschrieben definiert als psychologische Interventionen, deren primäres Ziel die Schmerzreduktion war.
Die extrahierten Zielgrößen, wie Lebensqualität oder Depressivität, ergaben sich aus den in den Primärstudien untersuchten Hauptoutcomes und nicht aus der Suchstrategie.
Zur Einschätzung der methodischen Qualität der Primärstudien konnte ein Kriterium des von Johannsen und Kollegen [2] gebildeten Scores nicht berücksichtigt werden, da die eingeschlossenen Primärstudien keine metaanalytische Zusammenfassung erlaubten. Stellt man dies in Rechnung, bleibt die Vergleichbarkeit beider Werte erhalten.
Die Evidenzsynthese erfolgte narrativ in Text- und Tabellenform, d. h. in Form einer strukturierten Zusammenfassung und Diskussion von Studien [1].
Um unsere Arbeit zu fokussieren, hätten wir eine weitergehende Gegenüberstellung wie auch eine Überprüfung von Zitaten und Übersetzungen selbstverständlich vorgenommen, wenn wir den Hinweis dazu vor Publikation erhalten hätten.
Theoretischer Hintergrund:Supervision spielt eine zentrale Rolle zum Wissens- und Kompetenzerwerb sowie in der Qualitätssicherung.
Fragestellung:Ziel war es, den aktuellen Forschungsstand zur Supervision im Rahmen der kognitiven Verhaltenstherapie abzubilden, um daraus Schlussfolgerungen für die zukünftige Forschung abzuleiten.
Methode:Zur Evidenzsynthese wurde ein Scoping Review durchgeführt, das die Darstellung zentraler Konzepte, aktueller Evidenz und möglicher Forschungsbedarfe ermöglichte. Neben einer systematischen Literaturrecherche wurden Vorwärts- und Rückwärtssuchstrategien eingesetzt.
Ergebnisse:Eingeschlossen wurden zwölf Publikationen basierend auf zehn empirischen Studien. Alle Studien beschrieben Ausbildungssettings, aber nur wenige untersuchten übende Interventionen (z. B. Rollenspiele). Häufig wurden Effekte subjektiv erfasst, die methodische Qualität der Begleitstudien variierte.
Schlussfolgerungen:Notwendig sind weitere methodisch hochwertige Studien, experimentell orientiert oder in der klinischen Praxis, die die Supervisionsforschung bereichern können.
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.
Purpose: The acquisition of skills is essential to the conceptualization of cognitive-behavioural therapy. Yet, what experiences are encountered and what skills actually learned during therapy, and whether patients and therapists have concurrent views hereof, remains poorly understood. Method: An explorative pilot study with semi-structured, corresponding interview guides was conducted. Pilot data from our outpatient unit were transcribed and content-analyzed following current guidelines. Results: The responses of 18 participants (patients and their psychotherapists) were assigned to six main categories. Educational and cognitive aspects were mentioned most frequently and consistently by both groups. Having learned Behavioural alternatives attained the second highest agreement between perspectives. Conclusions: Patients and therapists valued CBT as an opportunity to learn new skills, which is an important prerequisite also for the maintenance of therapeutic change. We discuss limitations to generalizability but also theoretical and therapy implications.
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.