Efficacy of mentalization-based therapy in treating self-harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and its adapted version for adolescents (MBT-A) are repeatedly highlighted as promising treatments for reducing self-harm, particularly in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite the availability of publications providing evidence of their efficacy in reducing self-harm, recent meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. To inform best-practice clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We aimed to disentangle findings for both adolescents and adults on the efficacy of MBT(-A) in reducing self-harm (primary outcome) and symptoms of BPD and depression (secondary outcomes). METHODS: Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Review Database were searched for eligible studies published until September 2022. In total, 14 studies were identified, comprising 612 participants from nine MBT studies (six pre-post, three RCTs) and five MBT-A studies (two pre-post, three RCTs). Aggregated effect sizes were estimated using random-effects models. Meta-regressions were conducted to assess the effect of moderator variables (treatment duration, drop-out rates, and age) on effect sizes. RESULTS: Overall, both MBT and MBT-A demonstrated promising effects in reducing self-harm (g = -0.82, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.50), borderline personality disorder (g = -1.08, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.77), and depression (g = -1.1, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.68) symptoms. However, when compared to control interventions (TAU, SCM), MBT(-A) did not prove to be more efficacious, with the exception of MBT showing superior effects on BPD symptoms in adults (g = -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24). CONCLUSION: Although the pre-post evaluations seem promising, this analysis, including RCTs, showed no superiority of MBT(-A) to control conditions, so that prioritizing the application of MBT (-A) for the treatment of self-harm is not supported. Possible explanations and further implications are discussed.

Virtual reality biofeedback interventions for treating anxiety : A systematic review, meta-analysis and future perspective.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR)-based biofeedback is a relatively new intervention and is increasingly being used for the treatment of anxiety disorders. This is the first research synthesis regarding effects and efficacy of this novel mode of treatment. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the VR biofeedback literature on treating anxiety symptoms. The MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible pre-post comparisons and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used self-reported anxiety, heart rate (HR), and heart rate variability (HRV) as primary outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with 191 participants reported VR biofeedback interventions. Of these studies 5 were RCTs, with 103 participants receiving VR biofeedback and 99 control participants (either 2D biofeedback or waiting list controls). We found that VR biofeedback significantly lowers self-reported anxiety (g = -0.28) and HR (g = -0.45), but not HRV. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in outcomes between VR biofeedback and 2D biofeedback but a significant reduction in HR in the VR biofeedback group compared with the waiting list (g = -0.52). CONCLUSION: While the first findings are optimistic, more controlled studies with a wider variety of samples are needed to bring this field forward. Particularly, children and adolescents may profit from the combination of gamification elements, VR, and biofeedback.