An Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Substance Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Application of the Society of Clinical Psychology Criteria for Empirically Supported Treatments.

IF 4.7 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Clinical Psychology-science and Practice Pub Date : 2023-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1037/cps0000131
Cassandra L Boness, Victoria R Votaw, Frank J Schwebel, David I K Moniz-Lewis, R Kathryn McHugh, Katie Witkiewitz
{"title":"An Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Substance Use Disorder: A Systematic Review and Application of the Society of Clinical Psychology Criteria for Empirically Supported Treatments.","authors":"Cassandra L Boness, Victoria R Votaw, Frank J Schwebel, David I K Moniz-Lewis, R Kathryn McHugh, Katie Witkiewitz","doi":"10.1037/cps0000131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a commonly used treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) but has not been evaluated using the American Psychological Association's \"Tolin Criteria\" for determining the empirical basis of psychological treatments. The current systematic review evaluated five meta-analyses of CBT for SUD. One meta-analysis had sufficient quality to be considered in the evaluation of effect sizes. CBT produced small to moderate effects on substance use when compared to inactive treatment and was most effective at early follow-up (1-6 months post-treatment) compared to late follow-up (8+ months post-treatment). Sensitivity analyses including all five meta-analyses found similar results. A \"strong recommendation\" was provided for CBT as an empirically supported treatment for SUD, based on effects on substance use, quality of evidence, and consideration of contextual factors (e.g., efficacy in diverse populations).</p>","PeriodicalId":10434,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology-science and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10572095/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology-science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cps0000131","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a commonly used treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs) but has not been evaluated using the American Psychological Association's "Tolin Criteria" for determining the empirical basis of psychological treatments. The current systematic review evaluated five meta-analyses of CBT for SUD. One meta-analysis had sufficient quality to be considered in the evaluation of effect sizes. CBT produced small to moderate effects on substance use when compared to inactive treatment and was most effective at early follow-up (1-6 months post-treatment) compared to late follow-up (8+ months post-treatment). Sensitivity analyses including all five meta-analyses found similar results. A "strong recommendation" was provided for CBT as an empirically supported treatment for SUD, based on effects on substance use, quality of evidence, and consideration of contextual factors (e.g., efficacy in diverse populations).

物质使用障碍的认知行为治疗评估:经验支持治疗的临床心理学标准的系统回顾和应用。
认知行为疗法(CBT)是治疗物质使用障碍(SUD)的常用方法,但尚未使用美国心理协会的“Tolin标准”来确定心理治疗的经验基础。目前的系统综述评估了五项针对SUD的CBT荟萃分析。一项荟萃分析具有足够的质量,可用于评估效应大小。与非活性治疗相比,CBT对药物使用产生了小到中等的影响,并且与晚期随访(治疗后8+个月)相比,早期随访(治疗前1-6个月)最有效。包括所有五项荟萃分析在内的敏感性分析发现了类似的结果。基于对药物使用的影响、证据质量和对背景因素的考虑(例如,在不同人群中的疗效),CBT作为SUD的一种经验支持的治疗方法,提供了“强烈建议”。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice presents cutting-edge developments in the science and practice of clinical psychology and related mental health fields by publishing scholarly articles, primarily involving narrative and systematic reviews as well as meta-analyses related to assessment, intervention, and service delivery.
×
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