A Systematic Review of Reporting Practices in Psychedelic Clinical Trials: Psychological Support, Therapy, and Psychosocial Interventions

William Brennan, Alex R. Kelman, Alexander B. Belser
{"title":"A Systematic Review of Reporting Practices in Psychedelic Clinical Trials: Psychological Support, Therapy, and Psychosocial Interventions","authors":"William Brennan, Alex R. Kelman, Alexander B. Belser","doi":"10.1089/psymed.2023.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Psychedelic-assisted therapy has gained significant attention in recent years. However, there is a lack of empirical clarity on the role of psychosocial interventions (PIs) in clinical trials of psychedelic treatment due in part to deficiencies in reporting practices found in the existing literature. These PI include non-drug support or interventions provided by psychotherapists or facilitators during all phases of treatment, sometimes called “psychological support,” “monitoring,” “psychedelic-assisted therapy,” or “psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.” A brief review of recent research, historical studies, safety considerations, and participant perspectives suggests that PI has a substantive and critical impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: This systematic review examines the reporting practices on PI in published clinical trial results. The review employs a search of PubMed/Medline and PSYCinfo databases to identify relevant articles. It includes quantitative clinical studies treating patients with psychiatric indications using classic psychedelics (psilocybin, LSD, DMT, ayahuasca) or empathogenic drugs (MDMA) since 2000. The analytic approach follows a modified version of assessment items based on CONSORT extension statement and TIDieR checklist. Results: Thirty-three published psychedelic clinical trials met criteria. The review reveals that many published reports on psychedelic clinical trials did not report basic aspects of the intervention: 33% did not report the number of sessions, 45% did not report the duration of sessions, 42% did not report provider credentials, 52% did not report whether their intervention used a therapy manual, 64% did not reference a manual that was available to readers, and 82% did not report that they assessed treatment fidelity. A comparison with non-psychedelic trials shows that psychedelic trial reports underreport on key items related to PI. Discussion: The study highlights the problems of underreporting and the importance of improving reporting practices regarding PI in psychedelic clinical trials to enhance research standardization and improve treatment outcomes. Recommendations for improving reporting practices are provided.","PeriodicalId":74590,"journal":{"name":"Psychedelic medicine (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","volume":"127 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychedelic medicine (New Rochelle, N.Y.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/psymed.2023.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Psychedelic-assisted therapy has gained significant attention in recent years. However, there is a lack of empirical clarity on the role of psychosocial interventions (PIs) in clinical trials of psychedelic treatment due in part to deficiencies in reporting practices found in the existing literature. These PI include non-drug support or interventions provided by psychotherapists or facilitators during all phases of treatment, sometimes called “psychological support,” “monitoring,” “psychedelic-assisted therapy,” or “psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy.” A brief review of recent research, historical studies, safety considerations, and participant perspectives suggests that PI has a substantive and critical impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: This systematic review examines the reporting practices on PI in published clinical trial results. The review employs a search of PubMed/Medline and PSYCinfo databases to identify relevant articles. It includes quantitative clinical studies treating patients with psychiatric indications using classic psychedelics (psilocybin, LSD, DMT, ayahuasca) or empathogenic drugs (MDMA) since 2000. The analytic approach follows a modified version of assessment items based on CONSORT extension statement and TIDieR checklist. Results: Thirty-three published psychedelic clinical trials met criteria. The review reveals that many published reports on psychedelic clinical trials did not report basic aspects of the intervention: 33% did not report the number of sessions, 45% did not report the duration of sessions, 42% did not report provider credentials, 52% did not report whether their intervention used a therapy manual, 64% did not reference a manual that was available to readers, and 82% did not report that they assessed treatment fidelity. A comparison with non-psychedelic trials shows that psychedelic trial reports underreport on key items related to PI. Discussion: The study highlights the problems of underreporting and the importance of improving reporting practices regarding PI in psychedelic clinical trials to enhance research standardization and improve treatment outcomes. Recommendations for improving reporting practices are provided.
致幻剂临床试验报告实践的系统回顾:心理支持、治疗和社会心理干预
背景:近年来,迷幻药辅助治疗获得了极大的关注。然而,由于现有文献中报告实践的不足,缺乏关于心理社会干预(pi)在致幻剂治疗临床试验中的作用的经验明确性。这些PI包括心理治疗师或辅导员在治疗的所有阶段提供的非药物支持或干预,有时被称为“心理支持”、“监测”、“迷幻辅助治疗”或“迷幻辅助心理治疗”。对近期研究、历史研究、安全性考虑和参与者观点的简要回顾表明,PI对治疗结果具有实质性和关键的影响。方法:本系统综述对已发表的临床试验结果中PI的报告做法进行了检查。本综述通过检索PubMed/Medline和PSYCinfo数据库来确定相关文章。它包括自2000年以来使用经典致幻剂(裸盖菇素、LSD、DMT、死藤水)或致病性药物(MDMA)治疗精神适应症患者的定量临床研究。分析方法遵循基于CONSORT扩展语句和TIDieR清单的评估项目的修改版本。结果:33项已发表的致幻剂临床试验符合标准。回顾显示,许多发表的关于迷幻药临床试验的报告没有报告干预的基本方面:33%没有报告治疗次数,45%没有报告治疗持续时间,42%没有报告提供者资质,52%没有报告他们的干预是否使用了治疗手册,64%没有参考读者可用的手册,82%没有报告他们评估了治疗的保真度。与非致幻剂试验的比较表明,致幻剂试验报告少报了与PI相关的关键项目。讨论:该研究强调了在致幻剂临床试验中存在的低报问题,以及改进报告实践以提高研究标准化和改善治疗结果的重要性。提出了改进报告做法的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信