常见因素在心理治疗结果中的作用。

IF 17.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Pim Cuijpers, Mirjam Reijnders, Marcus J H Huibers
{"title":"常见因素在心理治疗结果中的作用。","authors":"Pim Cuijpers,&nbsp;Mirjam Reijnders,&nbsp;Marcus J H Huibers","doi":"10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychotherapies may work through techniques that are specific to each therapy or through factors that all therapies have in common. Proponents of the common factors model often point to meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies that show all therapies have comparable effects. However, not all meta-analyses support the common factors model; the included studies often have several methodological problems; and there are alternative explanations for finding comparable outcomes. To date, research on the working mechanisms and mediators of therapies has always been correlational, and in order to establish that a mediator is indeed a causal factor in the recovery process of a patient, studies must show a temporal relationship between the mediator and an outcome, a dose-response association, evidence that no third variable causes changes in the mediator and the outcome, supportive experimental research, and have a strong theoretical framework. Currently, no common or specific factor meets these criteria and can be considered an empirically validated working mechanism. Therefore, it is still unknown whether therapies work through common or specific factors, or both.</p>","PeriodicalId":50755,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424","citationCount":"339","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Pim Cuijpers,&nbsp;Mirjam Reijnders,&nbsp;Marcus J H Huibers\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Psychotherapies may work through techniques that are specific to each therapy or through factors that all therapies have in common. Proponents of the common factors model often point to meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies that show all therapies have comparable effects. However, not all meta-analyses support the common factors model; the included studies often have several methodological problems; and there are alternative explanations for finding comparable outcomes. To date, research on the working mechanisms and mediators of therapies has always been correlational, and in order to establish that a mediator is indeed a causal factor in the recovery process of a patient, studies must show a temporal relationship between the mediator and an outcome, a dose-response association, evidence that no third variable causes changes in the mediator and the outcome, supportive experimental research, and have a strong theoretical framework. Currently, no common or specific factor meets these criteria and can be considered an empirically validated working mechanism. Therefore, it is still unknown whether therapies work through common or specific factors, or both.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424\",\"citationCount\":\"339\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/12/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095424","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 339

摘要

心理治疗可以通过特定于每种疗法的技术或通过所有疗法共有的因素来起作用。共同因素模型的支持者经常指出,比较结果研究的荟萃分析表明,所有治疗方法都具有可比性的效果。然而,并非所有的元分析都支持共同因素模型;纳入的研究通常有几个方法上的问题;对于找到可比较的结果,还有其他的解释。迄今为止,关于治疗的工作机制和介质的研究一直是相关的,为了确定介质确实是患者康复过程中的因果因素,研究必须显示介质和结果之间的时间关系,剂量-反应关联,没有第三变量导致介质和结果变化的证据,支持性的实验研究,并具有强大的理论框架。目前,没有共同的或特定的因素符合这些标准,可以被认为是经验验证的工作机制。因此,目前尚不清楚治疗是通过共同因素还是特定因素起作用,还是两者兼而有之。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes.

Psychotherapies may work through techniques that are specific to each therapy or through factors that all therapies have in common. Proponents of the common factors model often point to meta-analyses of comparative outcome studies that show all therapies have comparable effects. However, not all meta-analyses support the common factors model; the included studies often have several methodological problems; and there are alternative explanations for finding comparable outcomes. To date, research on the working mechanisms and mediators of therapies has always been correlational, and in order to establish that a mediator is indeed a causal factor in the recovery process of a patient, studies must show a temporal relationship between the mediator and an outcome, a dose-response association, evidence that no third variable causes changes in the mediator and the outcome, supportive experimental research, and have a strong theoretical framework. Currently, no common or specific factor meets these criteria and can be considered an empirically validated working mechanism. Therefore, it is still unknown whether therapies work through common or specific factors, or both.

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
31.50
自引率
0.50%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is a publication that has been available since 2005. It offers comprehensive reviews on significant developments in the field of clinical psychology and psychiatry. The journal covers various aspects including research, theory, and the application of psychological principles to address recognized disorders such as schizophrenia, mood, anxiety, childhood, substance use, cognitive, and personality disorders. Additionally, the articles also touch upon broader issues that cut across the field, such as diagnosis, treatment, social policy, and cross-cultural and legal issues. Recently, the current volume of this journal has transitioned from a gated access model to an open access format through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. All articles published in this volume are now available under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), allowing for widespread distribution and use. The journal is also abstracted and indexed in various databases including Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search, among 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