Co-Dependency Revisited: An Integrative Review of Conceptualisations and Mental Health Outcomes.

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Elena Molina, Abigail Taiwo, Ben Grey
{"title":"Co-Dependency Revisited: An Integrative Review of Conceptualisations and Mental Health Outcomes.","authors":"Elena Molina, Abigail Taiwo, Ben Grey","doi":"10.1002/cpp.70265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Co-dependency is a contested construct, applied to a broad range of relational difficulties. Despite its relevance, the term remains conceptually fragmented. This limits research development and clinical recognition, hindering the creation of effective interventions. An integrative systematic review is therefore needed to consolidate recent evidence and clarify its clinical significance, aiming to synthesise conceptualisations and mental health outcomes. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42024575573), Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, EBSCO, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES were searched in September 2024 for peer-reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2024. Eligible studies addressed co-dependency's conceptualisation and/or mental health outcomes in adults. Risk of bias was assessed using MMAT and JBI for textual evidence. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria (14 quantitative, 9 qualitative and 7 theoretical). Narrative synthesis identified six conceptual perspectives: sociocultural, relational, addiction/pathology-based, developmental, psychoanalytic and cognitive-personality. Co-dependency was consistently associated with emotional distress, disrupted identity and impaired relational functioning. Two integrative frameworks are proposed: one mapping intrapersonal and interpersonal contributors to co-dependency, and one illustrating a perpetuating model of mental health outcomes. Limitations include limited cultural generalisability and the exclusion of studies addressing adjacent constructs. Strengths include methodological diversity, transparent quality appraisal and the generation of clinically relevant models. Findings support a shift towards relationally and developmentally informed understandings of co-dependency.</p>","PeriodicalId":10460,"journal":{"name":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","volume":"33 2","pages":"e70265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13067074/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Co-dependency is a contested construct, applied to a broad range of relational difficulties. Despite its relevance, the term remains conceptually fragmented. This limits research development and clinical recognition, hindering the creation of effective interventions. An integrative systematic review is therefore needed to consolidate recent evidence and clarify its clinical significance, aiming to synthesise conceptualisations and mental health outcomes. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42024575573), Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, EBSCO, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES were searched in September 2024 for peer-reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2024. Eligible studies addressed co-dependency's conceptualisation and/or mental health outcomes in adults. Risk of bias was assessed using MMAT and JBI for textual evidence. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria (14 quantitative, 9 qualitative and 7 theoretical). Narrative synthesis identified six conceptual perspectives: sociocultural, relational, addiction/pathology-based, developmental, psychoanalytic and cognitive-personality. Co-dependency was consistently associated with emotional distress, disrupted identity and impaired relational functioning. Two integrative frameworks are proposed: one mapping intrapersonal and interpersonal contributors to co-dependency, and one illustrating a perpetuating model of mental health outcomes. Limitations include limited cultural generalisability and the exclusion of studies addressing adjacent constructs. Strengths include methodological diversity, transparent quality appraisal and the generation of clinically relevant models. Findings support a shift towards relationally and developmentally informed understandings of co-dependency.

重新审视共同依赖:概念和心理健康结果的综合回顾。
相互依赖是一个有争议的概念,适用于广泛的关系困难。尽管它具有相关性,但这个术语在概念上仍然是碎片化的。这限制了研究发展和临床认识,阻碍了有效干预措施的创建。因此,需要一个综合的系统评价来巩固最近的证据并澄清其临床意义,旨在综合概念和心理健康结果。根据PRISMA 2020指南和PROSPERO注册(CRD42024575573),我们于2024年9月检索了Scopus、PubMed、ProQuest Central、ProQuest dissertation & Theses Global、EBSCO、PsycINFO和PsycARTICLES,检索了2013年至2024年间发表的同行评议研究。符合条件的研究涉及成人共同依赖的概念化和/或心理健康结果。使用MMAT和JBI作为文本证据评估偏倚风险。30项研究符合纳入标准(14项定量研究,9项定性研究,7项理论研究)。叙事综合确定了六个概念视角:社会文化、关系、成瘾/病理基础、发展、精神分析和认知人格。相互依赖始终与情绪困扰、身份破坏和关系功能受损有关。提出了两个综合框架:一个映射相互依赖的内部和人际贡献者,一个说明心理健康结果的永久模型。局限性包括有限的文化概括性和排除邻近构念的研究。优势包括方法的多样性,透明的质量评估和临床相关模型的生成。研究结果支持对相互依赖的关系和发展的理解的转变。
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
Clinical psychology & psychotherapy
Clinical psychology & psychotherapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy aims to keep clinical psychologists and psychotherapists up to date with new developments in their fields. The Journal will provide an integrative impetus both between theory and practice and between different orientations within clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy will be a forum in which practitioners can present their wealth of expertise and innovations in order to make these available to a wider audience. Equally, the Journal will contain reports from researchers who want to address a larger clinical audience with clinically relevant issues and clinically valid research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书