ABSTRACT
Psychotherapeutic treatment of adolescents requires age-specific approaches and thus plausibly also involves different change mechanisms than adult psychotherapy. To guide further research and improve therapeutic outcomes for adolescents, we reviewed all RCTs investigating mechanisms of change in the psychological treatment of adolescents to identify the most promising age-, disorder- or treatment-specific mediators. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA), 106 studies were included that reported 252 statistical mediation tests assessed with 181 different measures. Most often studied and significant mediators were cognitive, followed by family-related, and behavioral variables. Several mediators were identified to be promising for future investigations: changes in negative thoughts, dysfunctional beliefs and metacognitive skills; family functioning and parenting skills; as well as successful engagement in therapy activities and increased impulse control. Symptom change during therapy was least often a mediator for other therapeutic changes. Relational and emotional mediators were largely understudied, whereas peer-influence appeared a promising mediator for intervention outcomes. Adolescence-specific mediators were most commonly investigated. Majority of studied mediators were not disorder-specific. There was a tendency to mainly test change mechanisms of specific theoretical models without considering other possible change theories. Further, virtually no studies fulfilled all criteria for rigorously investigating mediation and only nine were classified with an overall good study quality. While bearing in mind the current limitations in study designs, methodological rigor and reporting, there appears to be substantial evidence for transdiagnostic age-specific change models in the psychological treatment of adolescents. For future research, need for consensus on a core set of transdiagnostic and transtheoretical mediators and measures is highlighted. These should address likely core mechanisms of change, as well as take into account age-relevant developmental challenges and biological markers.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXTO: As dificuldades inerentes ao tratamento da anorexia nervosa são bem conhecidas e é, ainda hoje, predominante a concepção da anorexia nervosa enquanto doença crônica. Contudo, diversos estudos mostram não só que a recuperação é possível como também que há inclusivamente mulheres que se recuperam espontaneamente, sem terem sido sujeitas a tratamento. OBJETIVO: Este estudo pretende, assim, rever a literatura existente relativamente a fatores que contribuíram para a recuperação na anorexia nervosa, quer relacionados com o tratamento quer com extratramento. MÉTODO E RESULTADOS: Para tal, a partir da revisão de 13 estudos existentes sobre a perspectiva de ex-pacientes acerca do que contribuiu para a recuperação, este artigo irá pôr em destaque que "diferenças fizeram a diferença", bem como em que medida os estudos existentes permitem uma compreensão de como essas diferenças podem fazer a diferença. CONCLUSÃO: Conclui-se que, apesar de a investigação estar, sobretudo, centrada na compreensão dos fatores de tratamento mais úteis, muitas ex-pacientes parecem destacar mais a utilidade dos fatores extratratamento, nomeadamente a importância das relações na manutenção e resolução do problema. Os mesmos fatores são considerados prejudiciais e/ou úteis para diferentes entrevistadas, o que remete para a complexidade do fenômeno da recuperação que ainda carece de mais investigação.
BACKGROUND: The difficulties in the treatment of anorexia nervosa are well known and there is still today a dominant conception of anorexia nervosa as a chronic illness. Nevertheless, several studies show not only that recovery is possible but also that there are women who recover spontaneously, even without medical treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study intends to review the existing literature on the factors that contributed to the recovery in anorexia nervosa, whether or not related to treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: From the review of 13 existing studies, on the perspective of former patients about what contributed to the recovery, this article highlights which "differences did make a difference" and analyzes how these differences can actually make the difference. CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that although research had been mainly focused on understanding the most important medical treatment factors, many former patients emphasize the usefulness of extra-treatment factors, namely the importance of relationships in the maintenance and resolution of the problem. The same factors are considered harmful and/or useful by different respondents, which bring us to the complexity of the recovery phenomenon that still requires further research.
