以心理治疗为基础的自我伤害疗法的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-27 DOI:10.1111/sltb.13044
Carola Hajek Gross, Sofia-Marie Oehlke, Karin Prillinger, Andreas Goreis, Paul L Plener, Oswald D Kothgassner
{"title":"以心理治疗为基础的自我伤害疗法的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Carola Hajek Gross, Sofia-Marie Oehlke, Karin Prillinger, Andreas Goreis, Paul L Plener, Oswald D Kothgassner","doi":"10.1111/sltb.13044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and its adapted version for adolescents (MBT-A) are repeatedly highlighted as promising treatments for reducing self-harm, particularly in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite the availability of publications providing evidence of their efficacy in reducing self-harm, recent meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. To inform best-practice clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We aimed to disentangle findings for both adolescents and adults on the efficacy of MBT(-A) in reducing self-harm (primary outcome) and symptoms of BPD and depression (secondary outcomes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Review Database were searched for eligible studies published until September 2022. In total, 14 studies were identified, comprising 612 participants from nine MBT studies (six pre-post, three RCTs) and five MBT-A studies (two pre-post, three RCTs). Aggregated effect sizes were estimated using random-effects models. Meta-regressions were conducted to assess the effect of moderator variables (treatment duration, drop-out rates, and age) on effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, both MBT and MBT-A demonstrated promising effects in reducing self-harm (g = -0.82, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.50), borderline personality disorder (g = -1.08, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.77), and depression (g = -1.1, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.68) symptoms. However, when compared to control interventions (TAU, SCM), MBT(-A) did not prove to be more efficacious, with the exception of MBT showing superior effects on BPD symptoms in adults (g = -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the pre-post evaluations seem promising, this analysis, including RCTs, showed no superiority of MBT(-A) to control conditions, so that prioritizing the application of MBT (-A) for the treatment of self-harm is not supported. Possible explanations and further implications are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":39684,"journal":{"name":"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"317-337"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of mentalization-based therapy in treating self-harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Carola Hajek Gross, Sofia-Marie Oehlke, Karin Prillinger, Andreas Goreis, Paul L Plener, Oswald D Kothgassner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/sltb.13044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and its adapted version for adolescents (MBT-A) are repeatedly highlighted as promising treatments for reducing self-harm, particularly in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite the availability of publications providing evidence of their efficacy in reducing self-harm, recent meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. To inform best-practice clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We aimed to disentangle findings for both adolescents and adults on the efficacy of MBT(-A) in reducing self-harm (primary outcome) and symptoms of BPD and depression (secondary outcomes).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Review Database were searched for eligible studies published until September 2022. In total, 14 studies were identified, comprising 612 participants from nine MBT studies (six pre-post, three RCTs) and five MBT-A studies (two pre-post, three RCTs). Aggregated effect sizes were estimated using random-effects models. Meta-regressions were conducted to assess the effect of moderator variables (treatment duration, drop-out rates, and age) on effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, both MBT and MBT-A demonstrated promising effects in reducing self-harm (g = -0.82, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.50), borderline personality disorder (g = -1.08, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.77), and depression (g = -1.1, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.68) symptoms. However, when compared to control interventions (TAU, SCM), MBT(-A) did not prove to be more efficacious, with the exception of MBT showing superior effects on BPD symptoms in adults (g = -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although the pre-post evaluations seem promising, this analysis, including RCTs, showed no superiority of MBT(-A) to control conditions, so that prioritizing the application of MBT (-A) for the treatment of self-harm is not supported. Possible explanations and further implications are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"317-337\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.13044\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.13044","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:心理治疗(MBT)及其针对青少年的改良版(MBT-A)被反复强调为减少自残(尤其是边缘型人格障碍(BPD))的有效治疗方法。尽管有出版物提供了这些疗法在减少自残方面的疗效证据,但最近的荟萃分析却得出了好坏参半的结果。为了给最佳临床决策提供参考,我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析。我们的目的是将青少年和成年人的研究结果区分开来,以了解 MBT(-A)在减少自残(主要结果)以及 BPD 和抑郁症状(次要结果)方面的疗效:方法:在 Web of Science、Scopus、Embase、PubMed/Medline 和 Cochrane Review Database 中检索了 2022 年 9 月之前发表的符合条件的研究。总共确定了 14 项研究,包括来自 9 项 MBT 研究(6 项事后研究,3 项研究性临床试验)和 5 项 MBT-A 研究(2 项事后研究,3 项研究性临床试验)的 612 名参与者。使用随机效应模型估算了综合效应大小。进行了元回归以评估调节变量(治疗持续时间、辍学率和年龄)对效应大小的影响:总体而言,MBT 和 MBT-A 在减少自残(g = -0.82,95% CI -1.15 至 -0.50)、边缘型人格障碍(g =-1.08,95% CI -1.38 至 -0.77)和抑郁症(g =-1.1,95% CI -1.52 至 -0.68)症状方面均表现出良好的效果。然而,与对照干预(TAU、SCM)相比,MBT(-A)并未被证明更有效,但MBT对成人BPD症状(g = -0.56,95% CI -0.88至-0.24)的效果更佳:结论:尽管前后评价似乎很有希望,但包括研究性试验在内的这项分析表明,MBT(-A)并不优于对照条件,因此不支持优先应用MBT(-A)治疗自残。本文讨论了可能的解释和进一步的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of mentalization-based therapy in treating self-harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Mentalization-based therapy (MBT) and its adapted version for adolescents (MBT-A) are repeatedly highlighted as promising treatments for reducing self-harm, particularly in borderline personality disorder (BPD). Despite the availability of publications providing evidence of their efficacy in reducing self-harm, recent meta-analyses have yielded mixed results. To inform best-practice clinical decision-making, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We aimed to disentangle findings for both adolescents and adults on the efficacy of MBT(-A) in reducing self-harm (primary outcome) and symptoms of BPD and depression (secondary outcomes).

Methods: Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Cochrane Review Database were searched for eligible studies published until September 2022. In total, 14 studies were identified, comprising 612 participants from nine MBT studies (six pre-post, three RCTs) and five MBT-A studies (two pre-post, three RCTs). Aggregated effect sizes were estimated using random-effects models. Meta-regressions were conducted to assess the effect of moderator variables (treatment duration, drop-out rates, and age) on effect sizes.

Results: Overall, both MBT and MBT-A demonstrated promising effects in reducing self-harm (g = -0.82, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.50), borderline personality disorder (g = -1.08, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.77), and depression (g = -1.1, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.68) symptoms. However, when compared to control interventions (TAU, SCM), MBT(-A) did not prove to be more efficacious, with the exception of MBT showing superior effects on BPD symptoms in adults (g = -0.56, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.24).

Conclusion: Although the pre-post evaluations seem promising, this analysis, including RCTs, showed no superiority of MBT(-A) to control conditions, so that prioritizing the application of MBT (-A) for the treatment of self-harm is not supported. Possible explanations and further implications are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.10%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: An excellent resource for researchers as well as students, Social Cognition features reports on empirical research, self-perception, self-concept, social neuroscience, person-memory integration, social schemata, the development of social cognition, and the role of affect in memory and perception. Three broad concerns define the scope of the journal: - The processes underlying the perception, memory, and judgment of social stimuli - The effects of social, cultural, and affective factors on the processing of information - The behavioral and interpersonal consequences of cognitive processes.
×
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