Attachment Styles in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Lingfeng Xue, Virginia Chi Tong Chau, Anokhi Mehra, Rachel Woodham, Gabrielle Sheehan, Valentina Lorenzetti, Michal W S Ong, Muzzammil Hussain, Anna J Lawes, Ramesh Muthuswamy, Cynthia H Y Fu
{"title":"Attachment Styles in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Lingfeng Xue, Virginia Chi Tong Chau, Anokhi Mehra, Rachel Woodham, Gabrielle Sheehan, Valentina Lorenzetti, Michal W S Ong, Muzzammil Hussain, Anna J Lawes, Ramesh Muthuswamy, Cynthia H Y Fu","doi":"10.1002/cpp.70343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Major depressive disorder (MDD), a leading cause of disability, is associated with difficulties in close relationships. Attachment theory links early caregiving to internal working models shaping emotion regulation, interpersonal functioning and depression vulnerability. Attachment patterns in clinically diagnosed MDD have not been synthesised. Following PRISMA (PROSPERO: CRD42017068580), we searched for studies of adults with standardised diagnoses of MDD or postpartum depression (PPD) and attachment measures. Random-effects meta-analyses expressed categorical outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous outcomes as Hedges' g. As a result, 61 studies met inclusion criteria: 33 case-control and 28 depression-only, of which five provided qualitative data only. Categorically, MDD/PPD showed lower secure (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15-0.26, p < 0.001) and higher anxious (OR = 2.46, 1.66-3.64, p < 0.001), avoidant (OR = 1.42, 1.04-1.95, p = 0.027) and fearful attachment (OR = 3.00, 1.97-4.54, p < 0.001) than healthy controls. On continuous measures, secure attachment was lower (g = -0.46, p = 0.003) and anxious (g = 0.63, p < 0.001) and avoidant (g = 0.41, p = 0.011) higher; fearful was not significant (g = 0.35, p = 0.062) until an outlier was removed. Single-arm prevalence meta-analyses found secure attachment in 24.1%, fearful in 26.9%, avoidant in 23.7% and anxious in 23.0%, with secure more prevalent in PPD than MDD (31.9% versus 21.3%, p = 0.009). In conclusion, MDD and PPD show lower secure and higher anxious, fearful and avoidant attachment than healthy controls. About three in four patients show insecure attachment, supporting attachment-informed assessment and treatment planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":10460,"journal":{"name":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","volume":"33 5","pages":"e70343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13626741/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70343","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

Major depressive disorder (MDD), a leading cause of disability, is associated with difficulties in close relationships. Attachment theory links early caregiving to internal working models shaping emotion regulation, interpersonal functioning and depression vulnerability. Attachment patterns in clinically diagnosed MDD have not been synthesised. Following PRISMA (PROSPERO: CRD42017068580), we searched for studies of adults with standardised diagnoses of MDD or postpartum depression (PPD) and attachment measures. Random-effects meta-analyses expressed categorical outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous outcomes as Hedges' g. As a result, 61 studies met inclusion criteria: 33 case-control and 28 depression-only, of which five provided qualitative data only. Categorically, MDD/PPD showed lower secure (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15-0.26, p < 0.001) and higher anxious (OR = 2.46, 1.66-3.64, p < 0.001), avoidant (OR = 1.42, 1.04-1.95, p = 0.027) and fearful attachment (OR = 3.00, 1.97-4.54, p < 0.001) than healthy controls. On continuous measures, secure attachment was lower (g = -0.46, p = 0.003) and anxious (g = 0.63, p < 0.001) and avoidant (g = 0.41, p = 0.011) higher; fearful was not significant (g = 0.35, p = 0.062) until an outlier was removed. Single-arm prevalence meta-analyses found secure attachment in 24.1%, fearful in 26.9%, avoidant in 23.7% and anxious in 23.0%, with secure more prevalent in PPD than MDD (31.9% versus 21.3%, p = 0.009). In conclusion, MDD and PPD show lower secure and higher anxious, fearful and avoidant attachment than healthy controls. About three in four patients show insecure attachment, supporting attachment-informed assessment and treatment planning.

重性抑郁障碍的依恋类型:系统回顾与元分析。
重度抑郁症(MDD)是导致残疾的主要原因,与亲密关系中的困难有关。依恋理论将早期照顾与塑造情绪调节、人际功能和抑郁脆弱性的内部工作模式联系起来。临床诊断的重度抑郁症的依恋模式尚未合成。在PRISMA (PROSPERO: CRD42017068580)之后,我们检索了具有MDD或产后抑郁症(PPD)标准化诊断和依恋测量的成年人的研究。随机效应荟萃分析将分类结果表示为优势比(or),将连续结果表示为Hedges’g。结果,61项研究符合纳入标准:33项病例对照研究和28项仅抑郁症研究,其中5项仅提供定性数据。从分类上看,MDD/PPD的安全性较低(OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15-0.26, p
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