Banter in psychotherapy: Relationship to treatment type, therapeutic alliance, and therapy outcome.

INTRODUCTION: The use of humor in psychotherapy is widely considered to improve therapy outcomes and typically depends on context, patient sensitivity, and the therapist's humor style. Different types of humor may impact treatment type, therapeutic alliance, and therapy outcome; however, evidence from psychotherapy sessions on the role of banter has been sparse to date. Therefore, the study aims to examine banter in a secondary analysis of psychotherapy sessions. METHOD: The sample consisted of 68 depressed outpatients treated with one of three treatment types: psychoanalytic therapy (PA), psychodynamic therapy (PD), and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Banter and therapeutic alliance were rated for therapy sessions taken from the middle phase of treatment, outcome was assessed at the end of treatment. RESULTS: The main findings were (1) clinical examples of banter in psychotherapy were found in 62 from 68 sessions, (2) significantly more bantering in the main bantering category of facilitation for CBT sessions as compared to other treatment types, (3) facilitative banter as a significant predictor for the positive introject, (4) a significant correlation between bantering and bond between therapist and client. Furthermore, based on these results, psychometric properties of the Klagenfurt Bantering Instrument (KBI) are reported. CONCLUSION: From a bantering perspective, this study emphasizes the need to consider session context, client response, and sarcastic markers when categorizing negative banter using the KBI.

Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in a face-to-face versus videoconferencing setting: A single case study.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the coronavirus pandemic and crisis, psychotherapists around the world were forced to switch to video- or tele-based treatments overnight. To date, only a few studies on the effectiveness of video-based psychodynamic psychotherapy via the Internet exist. Therefore, the goal of the present study was to examine symptom improvement, therapeutic relationship, nonverbal synchrony processes, and intersession processes within a systematic single case design and compare face-to-face to video-based approaches in long-term psychodynamic-oriented psychotherapy. METHODS: We examined 85 sessions of a client with major depression whose psychodynamic psychotherapy changed from a face-to-face setting to a video-based setting. Video recordings were analyzed using motion energy analysis, and nonverbal synchrony was computed using a surrogate synchrony approach. Time series analyses were performed to analyze changes in symptom severity, therapeutic relationship, and intersession processes. RESULTS: The results showed that symptom severity improved descriptively, but not significantly, across the entire course of psychotherapy. There were significant differences, however, in the therapeutic relationship, intersession experiences, and synchronous behavior between the face-to-face and video-based settings. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the presented methodology is well situated to investigate the question whether psychodynamic psychotherapy in video-based setting works in the sameway as in a face-to-face setting.

[Evidence for Psychodynamic Therapy for Children and Adolescents]. / Evidenz für psychoanalytisch begründete Verfahren für Kinder und Jugendliche.

In Germany, cognitive-behavioral therapy, psychodynamic therapy, and systemic therapy are scientifically and legally approved as suitable procedures for treating mental disorders. While all methods have provided empirical evidence of their effectiveness in adults according to defined criteria of the "Scientific Advisory Board for Psychotherapy" (in German: "Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Psychotherapie"), i. e., the official board which decides upon the formal scientific approval of psychotherapeutic approaches in Germany, an evaluation is lacking for the psychodynamic methods in children and adolescents. Against this background, we evaluated the available empirical data for psychodynamic therapy in children and adolescents based on the methods paper of the "Scientific Advisory Board for Psychotherapy" (2019; version 2.9). Published reviews served as the basis for identifying relevant studies, supplemented by a systematic literature search. We identified 91 potentially relevant studies but could not consider the majority of these due to formal exclusion criteria (mainly not disorder-specific, no control group). Up to 26 of the remaining studies provide evidence of efficacy as defined by the "Scientific Advisory Board for Psychotherapy". These cover 10 of the 18 areas of application as defined by the "Scientific Advisory Board for Psychotherapy". According to our evaluation, the reviewed studies provide empirical evidence for the three most relevant areas of application (i. e., affective disorders; anxiety disorders and obsessive-compulsive disorders; hyperkinetic disorders and conduct disorders). Thus, the available evidence supports the suitability of psychodynamic therapy as a method for the treatment of children and adolescents.

Let's Distinguish Relative and Absolute Efficacy to Move Psychotherapy Research Forward.

Objective: Background regarding a recent debate between Cuijpers et al. (2019a, b) and the authors (Munder et al. 2019) about the efficacy of psychotherapy for depression is given. Method: A main reason for the discrepancy in Cuijpers et al.'s and our conclusions is discussed. Results: In our view the discrepancy is due, among other things, to a blurred distinction between questions of relative and absolute efficacy of psychotherapy. Although the efficacy of psychotherapy vis-à-vis alternative treatments may be ambiguous, there can be little doubt about the benefits of psychotherapy relative to no treatment. Conclusion: We do not think that raising fundamental concerns about the value of psychotherapy is a service to the field. We argue that moving the field forward requires a focus on how psychotherapy works and how the access to psychotherapy can be increased.

Prevalence of personality disorders in the general adult population in Western countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Personality disorder is a severe health issue. However, the epidemiology of personality disorders is insufficiently described and surveys report very heterogeneous rates.AimsWe aimed to conduct a meta-analysis on the prevalence of personality disorders in adult populations and examine potential moderators that affect heterogeneity. METHOD: We searched PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and Medline for studies that used standardised diagnostics (DSM-IV/-5, ICD-10) to report prevalence rates of personality disorders in community populations in Western countries. Prevalence rates were extracted and aggregated by random-effects models. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were performed and publication bias was assessed. RESULTS: The final sample comprised ten studies, with a total of 113 998 individuals. Prevalence rates were fairly high for any personality disorder (12.16%; 95% CI, 8.01-17.02%) and similarly high for DSM Clusters A, B and C, between 5.53 (95% CI, 3.20-8.43%) and 7.23% (95% CI, 2.37-14.42%). Prevalence was highest for obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (4.32%; 95% CI, 2.16-7.16%) and lowest for dependent personality disorder (0.78%; 95% CI, 0.37-1.32%). A low prevalence was significantly associated with expert-rated assessment (versus self-rated) and reporting of descriptive statistics for antisocial personality disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiological studies on personality disorders in community samples are rare, whereas prevalence rates are fairly high and vary substantially depending on samples and methods. Future studies investigating the epidemiology of personality disorders based on the DSM-5 and ICD-11 and models of personality functioning and traits are needed, and efficient treatment should be a priority for healthcare systems to reduce disease burden.Declaration of interestNone.

Psychoanalytic-Interactional Therapy versus Psychodynamic Therapy by Experts for Personality Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Efficacy-Effectiveness Study in Cluster B Personality Disorders.

BACKGROUND: With regard to cluster B personality disorders, most psychotherapeutic treatments focus on borderline personality disorder. Evidence-based treatments for patients with other cluster B personality disorders are not yet available. Psychoanalytic-interactional therapy (PIT) represents a transdiagnostic treatment for severe personality disorders. PIT has been applied in clinical practice for many years and has proven effective in open studies. In a randomized controlled trial, we compared manual-guided PIT to nonmanualized pychodynamic therapy by experts in personality disorders (E-PDT) in patients with cluster B personality disorders. METHODS: In an inpatient setting, patients with cluster B personality disorders were randomly assigned to manual-guided PIT (n = 64) or nonmanualized E-PDT (n = 58). In addition, a quasi-experimental control condition was used (n = 46) including both patients receiving treatment as usual and patients waiting for treatment. Primary outcomes were level of personality organization and overall psychological distress. As secondary outcomes, depression, anxiety and interpersonal problems were examined. RESULTS: No significant improvements were found in the control patients. Both PIT and E-PDT achieved significant improvements in all outcome measures and were superior to the control condition. No differences were found between PIT and E-PDT in any outcome measure at the end of treatment. The type of cluster B personality disorder had no impact on the results. CONCLUSIONS: In an inpatient setting, both PIT and E-PDT proved to be superior to a control condition in cluster B personality disorders. In a head-to-head comparison, both treatments appeared to be equally effective. Further research on the treatment of cluster B personality disorders is required.

[Study Quality and its Influence on Treatment Outcome in Studies on the Effectiveness of Inpatient Psychotherapy - A Meta-Analysis]. / Zusammenhang zwischen Studienqualität und Behandlungsergebnissen in Studien zur Wirksamkeit von stationärer Psychotherapie - Eine Metaanalyse.

INTRODUCTION: It is widely accepted that the quality of a study may affect its results. A possible influence of the studies' quality on the heterogeneity of the treatment effects will therefore be examined on the basis of studies being included in a recent meta-analysis on inpatient psychotherapy in German speaking countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The quality of the 103 included studies was assessed by means of 19 criteria addressing general study quality as well as internal and external validity. We examined the relation between study quality and treatment outcome (quantified by effect size Hedges' g either for the Global Severity Index of the Symptom Checklist (SCL GSI) or for an overall outcome calculated across various measures) with univariate correlation analyses as well as metaregression. RESULTS: Study quality varies considerably between the included studies but also between the different quality criteria. On average, the included studies show a medium quality. Most quality criteria do not correlate significantly with the treatment effects. Studies of higher quality tend to show higher treatment effects. DISCUSSION: The operationalization of single quality items is still worthy of discussion since some criteria are hardly ever while others are always fulfilled. The study quality does not appear to be a homogenous concept, but there are positive as well as negative correlations between single criteria and treatment outcome. Accordingly, the calculation of a total quality score does not seem feasible. CONCLUSION: Regarding the present meta-analysis on the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic hospital treatment, a systematic overestimation due to the inclusion of some studies with lower quality is not to be assumed.

How to assess the quality of psychotherapy outcome studies: A systematic review of quality assessment criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Although it is widely accepted that the quality of a study may affect its results, there is no agreed specific standard for assessing the quality of psychotherapy outcome studies. This study aims to review the existing variety of relevant quality assessment criteria. METHOD: We identified relevant quality measures based on a systematic literature search. To determine the specific relevance of the available quality criteria, we consulted experts in the field of psychotherapy outcome research. RESULTS: Nineteen different measures providing 185 different quality criteria were included. Four measures specifically focused psychotherapy studies, none of these were designed for studies without a control group. Experts did judge 20% of the items as "absolutely indispensable." CONCLUSIONS: Quality criteria that are exclusively related to the context of psychotherapy research are rare. Further research is required to examine the empirical relation between specific quality criteria and study results.

[Review Model for the Assessment of Psychometric Instruments--Recommendations of the German College of Psychosomatic Medicine (DKPM)]. / Kriterienkatalog zur Beurteilung psychodiagnostischer Selbstbeurteilungsinstrumente--Empfehlung des Deutschen Kollegiums für Psychosomatische Medizin (DKPM).

OBJECTIVES: Psychometric instruments are commonly applied in psychotherapeutic research and care for the baseline assessment of symptoms, the planning of therapeutic interventions, the assessment of the longitudinal course of symptoms and outcomes of therapeutic interventions as well as quality management of care. Psychometric properties as well as economic aspects should be considered in the selection of specific instruments. It is assumed that users of psychometric instruments face a great variety of instruments and related information. For that reason, it seems challenging to absorb the current knowledge and to integrate it into clinical practice and research. Thus, it is likely that well-known, established and easily accessible instruments are commonly used, while new developed instruments might not be disseminated in research and healthcare. METHODS: Based on available international review models, the working group "Psychometrics and Psychodiagnostics" of the German College of Psychosomatic Medicine (DKPM) has developed and tested a review model specifically tailored for psychotherapeutic research and care. RESULTS: The different steps of development, as well as the final review model based on the consensus of the working group are presented. The review model contains 6 generic terms (reliability, validity, objectivity, reference groups and aspects of application) with 21 different criteria to be assessed with 0-3 asterisks (*). The criteria are clearly operationalized and the practical use of the review model is explained and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: With the review model for the assessment of psychometric instruments a well-defined evaluation system is made available for research and clinical practice which has been developed by an expert group. The review model facilitates systematic, transparent and comparative evaluation of psychometric instruments along clearly defined criteria. It also supports the selection of psychometric instruments in research and care. Next, the working group aims at disseminating and implementing the review model as well as the application and publication of reviews for different psychometric instruments based on the review model.

Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-1970s, short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies (STPP) for a broad range of psychological and somatic disorders have been developed and studied. Early published meta-analyses of STPP, using different methods and samples, have yielded conflicting results, although some meta-analyses have consistently supported an empirical basis for STPP. This is an update of a review that was last updated in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of STPP for adults with common mental disorders compared with wait-list controls, treatments as usual and minimal contact controls in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To specify the differential effects of STPP for people with different disorders (e.g. depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, mixed disorders and personality disorder) and treatment characteristics (e.g. manualised versus non-manualised therapies). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) was searched to February 2014, this register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974-), MEDLINE (1950-) and PsycINFO (1967-). We also conducted searches on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, DARE and Biological Abstracts (all years to July 2012) and all relevant studies (identified to 2012) were fully incorporated in this review update. We checked references from papers retrieved. We contacted a large group of psychodynamic researchers in an attempt to find new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs of adults with common mental disorders, in which a brief psychodynamic therapy lasting 40 or fewer hours in total was provided in individual format. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Eight review authors working in pairs evaluated studies. We selected studies only if pairs of review authors agreed that the studies met inclusion criteria. We consulted a third review author if two review authors could not reach consensus. Two review authors collected data and entered it into Review Manager software. Two review authors assessed and scored risk of bias. We assessed publication bias using a funnel plot. Two review authors conducted and reviewed subgroup analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 studies of STPP involving 2173 randomised participants with common mental disorders. Studies were of diverse conditions in which problems with emotional regulation were purported to play a causative role albeit through a range of symptom presentations. These studies evaluated STPP for this review's primary outcomes (general, somatic, anxiety and depressive symptom reduction), as well as interpersonal problems and social adjustment. Except for somatic measures in the short-term, all outcome categories suggested significantly greater improvement in the treatment versus the control groups in the short-term and medium-term. Effect sizes increased in long-term follow-up, but some of these effects did not reach statistical significance. A relatively small number of studies (N < 20) contributed data for the outcome categories. There was also significant heterogeneity between studies in most categories, possibly due to observed differences between manualised versus non-manualised treatments, short versus longer treatments, studies with observer-rated versus self report outcomes, and studies employing different treatment models. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There has been further study of STPP and it continues to show promise, with modest to large gains for a wide variety of people. However, given the limited data, loss of significance in some measures at long-term follow-up and heterogeneity between studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, variability in treatment delivery and treatment quality may limit the reliability of estimates of effect for STPP. Larger studies of higher quality and with specific diagnoses are warranted.

The MentDis_ICF65+ study protocol: prevalence, 1-year incidence and symptom severity of mental disorders in the elderly and their relationship to impairment, functioning (ICF) and service utilisation.

BACKGROUND: The EU currently lacks reliable data on the prevalence and incidence of mental disorders in older people. Despite the availability of several national and international epidemiological studies, the size and burden of mental disorders in the elderly remain unclear due to various reasons. Therefore, the aims of the MentDis_ICF65+ study are (1) to adapt existing assessment instruments, and (2) to collect data on the prevalence, the incidence, and the natural course and prognosis of mental disorders in the elderly. METHOD/DESIGN: Using a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal design, this multi-centre study from six European countries and associated states (Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) is based on age-stratified, random samples of elderly people living in the community. The study program consists of three phases: (1) a methodological phase devoted primarily to the adaptation of age- and gender-specific assessment tools for older people (e.g., the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, CIDI) as well as psychometric evaluations including translation, back translation; (2) a baseline community study in all participating countries to assess the lifetime, 12 month and 1 month prevalence and comorbidity of mental disorders, including prior course, quality of life, health care utilization and helpseeking, impairments and participation and, (3) a 12 month follow-up of all baseline participants to monitor course and outcome as well as examine predictors. DISCUSSION: The study is an essential step forward towards the further development and improvement of harmonised instruments for the assessment of mental disorders as well as the evaluation of activity impairment and participation in older adults. This study will also facilitate the comparison of cross-cultural results. These results will have bearing on mental health care in the EU and will offer a starting point for necessary structural changes to be initiated for mental health care policy at the level of mental health care politics.

[Effectiveness of psychotherapeutic hospital treatment in German speaking countries: a meta-analysis]. / Wirksamkeit psychotherapeutischer Krankenhausbehandlung im deutschsprachigen Raum: Eine Meta-Analyse.

Psychotherapeutic hospital treatment is a traditionally important intervention in German speaking countries. Nonetheless, systematic evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. The present meta-analysis aims to integrate results of all available published and unpublished studies. 103 studies could be identified by electronic database search and handsearch. Effect sizes were calculated for different outcome domains (somatic, mental, cognitive, social, functional, economic, and general condition). Meta-analysis reveals medium to large effects for psychotherapeutic hospital treatment (overall outcome pre-post: g=0.71; 95% CI 0.65-0.76) with slight increase to follow-up (g=0.80; 95% CI 0.69-0.90). Due to heterogeneity of patients, interventions, outcome measures, and study quality, the aggregated effect sizes show a great variance.

[The efficacy of psychodynamic therapy: a controversy]. / Zur Kontroverse um die Wirksamkeit psychodynamischer Therapie.

There is growing evidence from randomized controlled trials supporting the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy (PDT) in specific mental disorders. Yet the evidence for the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy has not gone unchallenged. Several responses have addressed these concerns, showing that most of the criticism was not justified. Nevertheless, the evidence for psychodynamic psychotherapy continues to be frequently ignored, criticized or presented in a distorted way. A recent controversy published in the Nervenarzt may serve as an illustrative example, which is discussed here more in detail. This example shows that some authors are not interested in a truly scientific discussion, but rather try to discredit a rival method of psychotherapy and its scientific representatives for political reasons.

The status of psychodynamic psychotherapy as an empirically supported treatment for common mental disorders - an umbrella review based on updated criteria.

To assess the current status of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) as an empirically supported treatment (EST), we carried out a pre-registered systematic umbrella review addressing the evidence for PDT in common mental disorders in adults, based on an updated model for ESTs. Following this model, we focused on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the past two years to assess efficacy. In addition, we reviewed the evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and mechanisms of change. Meta-analyses were evaluated by at least two raters using the proposed updated criteria, i.e. effect sizes, risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias, treatment fidelity, and their quality as well as that of primary studies. To assess the quality of evidence we applied the GRADE system. A systematic search identified recent meta-analyses on the efficacy of PDT in depressive, anxiety, personality and somatic symptom disorders. High quality evidence in depressive and somatic symptom disorders and moderate quality evidence in anxiety and personality disorders showed that PDT is superior to (inactive and active) control conditions in reducing target symptoms with clinically meaningful effect sizes. Moderate quality evidence suggests that PDT is as efficacious as other active therapies in these disorders. The benefits of PDT outweigh its costs and harms. Furthermore, evidence was found for long-term effects, improving functioning, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and mechanisms of change in the aforementioned disorders. Some limitations in specific research areas exist, such as risk of bias and imprecision, which are, however, comparable to those of other evidence-based psychotherapies. Thus, according to the updated EST model, PDT proved to be an empirically-supported treatment for common mental disorders. Of the three options for recommendation provided by the updated model (i.e., "very strong", "strong" or "weak"), the new EST criteria suggest that a strong recommendation for treating the aforementioned mental disorders with PDT is the most appropriate option. In conclusion, PDT represents an evidence-based psychotherapy. This is clinically important since no single therapeutic approach fits all psychiatric patients, as shown by the limited success rates across all evidence-based treatments.

The efficacy of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders in adults: an umbrella review and meta-analytic evaluation of recent meta-analyses.

Mental disorders represent a worldwide public health concern. Psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies are recommended as first line treatments. However, evidence has emerged that their efficacy may be overestimated, due to a variety of shortcomings in clinical trials (e.g., publication bias, weak control conditions such as waiting list). We performed an umbrella review of recent meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for the main mental disorders in adults. We selected meta-analyses that formally assessed risk of bias or quality of studies, excluded weak comparators, and used effect sizes for target symptoms as primary outcome. We searched PubMed and PsycINFO and individual records of the Cochrane Library for meta-analyses published between January 2014 and March 2021 comparing psychotherapies or pharmacotherapies with placebo or treatment-as-usual (TAU), or psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies head-to-head, or the combination of psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy to either monotherapy. One hundred and two meta-analyses, encompassing 3,782 RCTs and 650,514 patients, were included, covering depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, substance use disorders, insomnia, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, and bipolar disorder. Across disorders and treatments, the majority of effect sizes for target symptoms were small. A random effect meta-analytic evaluation of the effect sizes reported by the largest meta-analyses per disorder yielded a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26-0.42) for psychotherapies and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.32-0.41) for pharmacotherapies compared with placebo or TAU. The SMD for head-to-head comparisons of psychotherapies vs. pharmacotherapies was 0.11 (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.26). The SMD for the combined treatment compared with either monotherapy was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.19-0.44). Risk of bias was often high. After more than half a century of research, thousands of RCTs and millions of invested funds, the effect sizes of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapies for mental disorders are limited, suggesting a ceiling effect for treatment research as presently conducted. A paradigm shift in research seems to be required to achieve further progress.