Efficacy of high-intensity versus low-intensity psychoanalytically oriented long-term treatments and determinants of outcome: individual participant data Meta-analysis of Long-term Analytic treatment Studies (MeLAS)

Author:

Krakau LinaORCID,Leuzinger-Bohleber Marianne,Brähler Elmar,Schmidt Peter,Rost Felicitas,Huber Dorothea,Klug Guenther,Löffler-Stastka HenrietteORCID,Rössler-Schülein Hemma,Leichsenring FalkORCID,Salzer Simone,Brockmann Josef,Jakobsen Thorsten,Ernst MareikeORCID,Beutel Manfred E

Abstract

IntroductionLong-term psychodynamic/psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP) is a prevalent treatment option for complex mental disorders. Yet, little is known about the role of treatment intensity in LTPP. We present a study protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis aggregating and analysing individual data from randomised and quasi-experimental trials by meta-analysis. The purpose is to (1) determine the treatment effectiveness of LTPP with low versus high intensity (up to 2 weekly sessions vs three or more), (2) compare their joint effectiveness to shorter therapies and treatments as usual, (3) identify predictors and moderators of treatment outcomes and (4) determine reciprocal relationships between different outcome domains (symptomatic and structural/personality change) over the courses of LTPP.Methods and analysisWe include studies from (randomised controlled trial, RCT) and quasi-experimental trials, where at least one condition was LTPP of high or low frequency. Long-term treatment is defined as ≥1 year or ≥50 sessions. To be eligible studies must include a standardised outcome measure of symptoms (global or disorder specific) with at least one proof of reliability. The primary outcome is symptom reduction (global or specific), secondary outcome criteria are reliable change, remission, functional capacities, personality, personality functioning and interpersonal pathology. Relevant studies will mainly be identified by searching relevant databases: PubMed, PsycINFO (via EBSCO), Web of Science (via Elsevier), Chochrane’s Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley). Risk of bias will be evaluated in line with the Cochrane assessments tools for quasi-experimental trials and RCTs, respectively.Ethics and disseminationAggregation of data from primary trials collected based on ethics votes. Dissemination into clinical practice via open access publications of findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022304982; Pre-results.

Funder

DGPT

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3