丧亲干预的有效性:一个系统的保护伞回顾。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Kate A Avis, Marjolein Missler, Denise van Deursen, Lonneke I M Lenferink, Margaret Stroebe, Henk Schut
{"title":"丧亲干预的有效性:一个系统的保护伞回顾。","authors":"Kate A Avis, Marjolein Missler, Denise van Deursen, Lonneke I M Lenferink, Margaret Stroebe, Henk Schut","doi":"10.1097/HRP.0000000000000426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>In recent decades, there have been diverse reviews published on intervention program value for bereaved people. The variation and multiplicity of such reviews makes it difficult to obtain an overview of what is known about treatment effectiveness. In this systematic umbrella review, we explore the current knowledge base on psychotherapeutic bereavement intervention program efficacy. Thirty-three quantitative systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between January 2001 and October 2021 were included. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria. Intervention efficacy was determined by rating overall conclusions into three categories according to strength of evidence: positive-unconditional, positive-conditional, and negative-no evidence. Our results indicate that bereavement interventions are generally helpful. Seven reviews indicated positive-unconditional support for bereavement interventions. Twenty-four reviews found positive-conditional support (i.e., some evidence of value, but efficacy did not apply in all circumstances or was constrained by database weaknesses or weak effects), and only two reviews indicated negative-no evidence for support. Notably, conclusions were generally limited by poor review quality and methodological concerns (e.g., lack of randomized controlled trials and follow-up studies). As such, we call for future empirical studies and review articles to abide by methodological quality standards. Furthermore, we recommend further study of the subgroup variables and intervention features that contribute to treatment efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12915,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Review of Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficacy of Bereavement Interventions: A Systematic Umbrella Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kate A Avis, Marjolein Missler, Denise van Deursen, Lonneke I M Lenferink, Margaret Stroebe, Henk Schut\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/HRP.0000000000000426\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>In recent decades, there have been diverse reviews published on intervention program value for bereaved people. The variation and multiplicity of such reviews makes it difficult to obtain an overview of what is known about treatment effectiveness. In this systematic umbrella review, we explore the current knowledge base on psychotherapeutic bereavement intervention program efficacy. Thirty-three quantitative systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between January 2001 and October 2021 were included. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria. Intervention efficacy was determined by rating overall conclusions into three categories according to strength of evidence: positive-unconditional, positive-conditional, and negative-no evidence. Our results indicate that bereavement interventions are generally helpful. Seven reviews indicated positive-unconditional support for bereavement interventions. Twenty-four reviews found positive-conditional support (i.e., some evidence of value, but efficacy did not apply in all circumstances or was constrained by database weaknesses or weak effects), and only two reviews indicated negative-no evidence for support. Notably, conclusions were generally limited by poor review quality and methodological concerns (e.g., lack of randomized controlled trials and follow-up studies). As such, we call for future empirical studies and review articles to abide by methodological quality standards. Furthermore, we recommend further study of the subgroup variables and intervention features that contribute to treatment efficacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Review of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Review of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000426\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Review of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HRP.0000000000000426","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:近几十年来,关于干预方案对丧亲之人的价值,发表了各种各样的评论。这种评论的多样性和多样性使得很难获得关于治疗有效性的已知概况。在这篇系统的综述中,我们探讨了目前关于心理治疗性丧亲干预方案疗效的知识基础。纳入了2001年1月至2021年10月间发表的33篇定量系统综述和/或荟萃分析。使用多重系统评价标准评估质量。干预效果是通过根据证据强度将总体结论分为三类来确定的:积极-无条件,积极-有条件和消极-无证据。我们的结果表明,丧亲干预通常是有帮助的。七篇综述表明对丧亲干预的积极无条件支持。24篇综述发现了积极的条件支持(即,一些有价值的证据,但有效性并不适用于所有情况,或者受到数据库弱点或弱效应的限制),只有两篇综述指出了消极的-没有证据支持。值得注意的是,结论通常受到评审质量差和方法学问题(例如,缺乏随机对照试验和随访研究)的限制。因此,我们呼吁未来的实证研究和评论文章遵守方法学质量标准。此外,我们建议进一步研究影响治疗效果的亚组变量和干预特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Efficacy of Bereavement Interventions: A Systematic Umbrella Review.

Abstract: In recent decades, there have been diverse reviews published on intervention program value for bereaved people. The variation and multiplicity of such reviews makes it difficult to obtain an overview of what is known about treatment effectiveness. In this systematic umbrella review, we explore the current knowledge base on psychotherapeutic bereavement intervention program efficacy. Thirty-three quantitative systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published between January 2001 and October 2021 were included. Quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria. Intervention efficacy was determined by rating overall conclusions into three categories according to strength of evidence: positive-unconditional, positive-conditional, and negative-no evidence. Our results indicate that bereavement interventions are generally helpful. Seven reviews indicated positive-unconditional support for bereavement interventions. Twenty-four reviews found positive-conditional support (i.e., some evidence of value, but efficacy did not apply in all circumstances or was constrained by database weaknesses or weak effects), and only two reviews indicated negative-no evidence for support. Notably, conclusions were generally limited by poor review quality and methodological concerns (e.g., lack of randomized controlled trials and follow-up studies). As such, we call for future empirical studies and review articles to abide by methodological quality standards. Furthermore, we recommend further study of the subgroup variables and intervention features that contribute to treatment efficacy.

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
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Harvard Review of Psychiatry is the authoritative source for scholarly reviews and perspectives on important topics in psychiatry. Founded by the Harvard Medical School''s Department of Psychiatry, the Harvard Review of Psychiatry features review papers that summarize and synthesize the key literature in a scholarly and clinically relevant manner. Topics covered include: Schizophrenia and related disorders; Mood disorders; Personality disorders; Substance use disorders; Anxiety; Neuroscience; Psychosocial aspects of psychiatry; Ethics; Psychiatric education; and much more. In addition, a Clinical Challenges section presents a case with discussion from a panel of experts. Brief reviews are presented in topic-specific columns that include Cross-Cultural Psychiatry, History of Psychiatry, Ethics, and others.
×
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