The evidence for cognitive behavioural therapy in any condition, population or context: a meta-review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis.

Journal: Psychological medicine

Volume: 51

Issue: 1

Year of Publication: 2021

Affiliated Institutions:  Nuffield Department of Orthopaedic, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science (NDORMS) University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK. Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK. Institute of Mental Health, University College London, London, UK. Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. Department of Philosophy, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.

Abstract summary 

The majority of psychological treatment research is dedicated to investigating the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) across different conditions, population and contexts. We aimed to summarise the current systematic review evidence and evaluate the consistency of CBT's effect across different conditions. We included reviews of CBT randomised controlled trials in any: population, condition, format, context, with any type of comparator and published in English. We searched DARE, Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, CDAS, and OpenGrey between 1992 and January 2019. Reviews were quality assessed, their data extracted and summarised. The effects upon health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were pooled, within-condition groups. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I2 < 75%, we pooled effects using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. We summarised 494 reviews (221 128 participants), representing 14/20 physical and 13/20 mental conditions (World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases). Most reviews were lower-quality (351/494), investigated face-to-face CBT (397/494), and in adults (378/494). Few reviews included trials conducted in Asia, South America or Africa (45/494). CBT produced a modest benefit across-conditions on HRQoL (standardised mean difference 0.23; 95% confidence intervals 0.14-0.33, I2 = 32%). The effect's associated prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50 suggested CBT will remain effective in conditions for which we do not currently have available evidence. While there remain some gaps in the completeness of the evidence base, we need to recognise the consistent evidence for the general benefit which CBT offers.

Authors & Co-authors:  Fordham Beth B Sugavanam Thavapriya T Edwards Katherine K Stallard Paul P Howard Robert R das Nair Roshan R Copsey Bethan B Lee Hopin H Howick Jeremy J Hemming Karla K Lamb Sarah E SE

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations :  Akechi, T., Okuyama, T., Onishi, J., Morita, T., & Furukawa, T. A. (2008). Psychotherapy for depression among incurable cancer patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 16(2), CD005537 10.1002/14651858.CD005537.pub2.
Authors :  11
Identifiers
Doi : 10.1017/S0033291720005292
SSN : 1469-8978
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Other Terms
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy;meta-review;overview;panoramic meta-analysis;systematic reviews
Study Design
Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Systemic Review
Country of Study
Publication Country
England