Amelia J. Scott , Madelyne A. Bisby , Andreea I. Heriseanu , Yalda Salameh , Eyal Karin , Rhiannon Fogliati , Joanne Dudeney , Milena Gandy , Lauren F. McLellan , Bethany Wootton , Sarah McDonald , Ashleigh Correa , Nick Titov , Blake F. Dear
{"title":"Cognitive behavioral therapies for depression and anxiety in people with chronic disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Amelia J. Scott , Madelyne A. Bisby , Andreea I. Heriseanu , Yalda Salameh , Eyal Karin , Rhiannon Fogliati , Joanne Dudeney , Milena Gandy , Lauren F. McLellan , Bethany Wootton , Sarah McDonald , Ashleigh Correa , Nick Titov , Blake F. Dear","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Anxiety and depression in chronic disease are common and burdensome co-morbidities. There has been growing interest in cognitive and behavioral therapies (CBTs) for anxiety and depression in chronic disease, however their efficacy has not been well-established. This study examined the efficacy of CBTs for depression and/or anxiety symptoms within chronic disease and explored the moderating role of clinical and methodological characteristics.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Following prospective registration, electronic databases were searched up to 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining CBTs for depression and/or anxiety in any adult chronic disease population.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 56 RCTs. The overall effect of CBTs was g = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.49, 0.72) for depression and g = 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42, 0.70) for anxiety. A range of methodological features significantly moderated the effect sizes obtained, including type of control group and the outcome measure used. Risk of Bias ratings indicated some concerns regarding RCT conduct and reporting.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CBTs lead to moderate improvements in both depression and anxiety symptoms among people with chronic disease. However, the efficacy of CBT should be interpreted considering certain study and sample characteristics. It is recommended that future studies make improvements to study methodology and reporting.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001113","RegionNum":1,"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: 1
Abstract
Objective
Anxiety and depression in chronic disease are common and burdensome co-morbidities. There has been growing interest in cognitive and behavioral therapies (CBTs) for anxiety and depression in chronic disease, however their efficacy has not been well-established. This study examined the efficacy of CBTs for depression and/or anxiety symptoms within chronic disease and explored the moderating role of clinical and methodological characteristics.
Methods
Following prospective registration, electronic databases were searched up to 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining CBTs for depression and/or anxiety in any adult chronic disease population.
Results
We included 56 RCTs. The overall effect of CBTs was g = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.49, 0.72) for depression and g = 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42, 0.70) for anxiety. A range of methodological features significantly moderated the effect sizes obtained, including type of control group and the outcome measure used. Risk of Bias ratings indicated some concerns regarding RCT conduct and reporting.
Conclusions
CBTs lead to moderate improvements in both depression and anxiety symptoms among people with chronic disease. However, the efficacy of CBT should be interpreted considering certain study and sample characteristics. It is recommended that future studies make improvements to study methodology and reporting.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.