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.

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.

Empirically supported psychodynamic psychotherapy for common mental disorders-An update applying revised criteria: Systematic review protocol.

The approach of evidence-based medicine has been extended to psychotherapy. More than 20 years ago, criteria for empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments (ESTs) were defined. Meanwhile a new model for empirically supported psychotherapeutic treatments has been proposed. While the empirical status of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) was assessed in several reviews using the previous criteria, the proposed new model has not yet been applied to PDT. For this reason, we will carry out a systematic review on studies of PDT in common mental disorders applying the revised criteria of ESTs. As suggested by the new model we will focus on recent systematic quantitative reviews. A systematic search for meta-analyses on the efficacy of PDT in common mental disorders will be carried out. Meta-analyses will be selected and evaluated by at least two raters along the criteria of the new proposed model. In addition, systematic reviews and individual studies addressing mechanisms of change in PDT, effectiveness under real-world conditions, cost-effectiveness and adverse events will be systematically searched for and evaluated. Finally, quality of evidence, the extent to which benefits exceed harms and strength of recommendations will be assessed per disorder using GRADE.

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.

Systematic Review on Mentalization as Key Factor in Psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Mentalization processes seem to be of high relevance for social learning and seem important in all psychotherapies. The exact role of mentalization processes in psychotherapy is still unknown. The aim of the present systematic review is to investigate whether mentalization is related to the therapeutic outcome and, if so, whether it has a moderating, mediative, or predictive function. METHOD: A systematic review with an electronic database search was conducted. A total of 2567 records were identified, and 10 studies were included in the final synthesis. RESULTS: Psychotherapy research is still in an initial phase of examining and understanding the impact of mentalization on psychotherapy outcome. The small number of studies and the executed study designs and statistical analyses indicate the possible role that mentalization has in psychotherapy. CONCLUSION: Generally, strongly elaborated study designs are needed to identify the role of mentalization in psychotherapy. Mentalization seems to be differently represented in differential treatment approaches. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the patient's mentalizing capacity seems to be relevant to the psychotherapy process. Psychotherapies should be adapted to this.

[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.

"Gold Standards," Plurality and Monocultures: The Need for Diversity in Psychotherapy.

For psychotherapy of mental disorders, presently several approaches are available, such as interpersonal, humanistic, systemic, psychodynamic or cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). Pointing to the available evidence, proponents of CBT claim that CBT is the gold standard. Some authors even argue for an integrated CBT-based form of psychotherapy as the only form of psychotherapy. CBT undoubtedly has its strengths and CBT researchers have to be credited for developing and testing treatments for many mental disorders. A critical review, however, shows that the available evidence for the theoretical foundations of CBT, assumed mechanisms of change, quality of studies, and efficacy is not as robust as some researchers claim. Most important, there is no consistent evidence that CBT is more efficacious than other evidence-based approaches. These findings do not justify regarding CBT as the gold standard psychotherapy. They even provide less justification for the idea that the future of psychotherapy lies in one integrated CBT-based form of psychotherapy as the only type of psychotherapy. For the different psychotherapeutic approaches a growing body of evidence is available. These approaches have their strengths because of differences in their respective focus on interpersonal relationships, affects, cognitions, systemic perspectives, experiential, or unconscious processes. Different approaches may be suitable to different patients and therapists. As generally assumed, progress in research results from openness to new ideas and learning from diverse perspectives. Thus, different forms of evidence-based psychotherapy are required. Plurality is the future of psychotherapy, not a uniform "one fits all" approach.

Psychodynamic Therapy: As Efficacious as Other Empirically Supported Treatments? A Meta-Analysis Testing Equivalence of Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacotherapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and psychodynamic therapy are most frequently applied to treat mental disorders. However, whether psychodynamic therapy is as efficacious as other empirically supported treatments is not yet clear. Thus, for the first time the equivalence of psychodynamic therapy to treatments established in efficacy was formally tested. The authors controlled for researcher allegiance effects by including representatives of psychodynamic therapy and CBT, the main rival psychotherapeutic treatments (adversarial collaboration). METHOD: The authors applied the formal criteria for testing equivalence, implying a particularly strict test: a priori defining a margin compatible with equivalence (g=0.25), using the two one-sided test procedure, and ensuring the efficacy of the comparator. Independent raters assessed effect sizes, study quality, and allegiance. A systematic literature search used the following criteria: randomized controlled trial of manual-guided psychodynamic therapy in adults, testing psychodynamic therapy against a treatment with efficacy established for the disorder under study, and applying reliable and valid outcome measures. The primary outcome was "target symptoms" (e.g., depressive symptoms in depressive disorders). RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials with 2,751 patients were included. The mean study quality was good as demonstrated by reliable rating methods. Statistical analyses showed equivalence of psychodynamic therapy to comparison conditions for target symptoms at posttreatment (g=-0.153, 90% equivalence CI=-0.227 to -0.079) and at follow-up (g=-0.049, 90% equivalence CI=-0.137 to -0.038) because both CIs were included in the equivalence interval (-0.25 to 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest equivalence of psychodynamic therapy to treatments established in efficacy. Further research should examine who benefits most from which treatment.

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.