The importance of problem-focused treatments: A meta-analysis of anxiety treatments.

One explanation for differences in treatment effectiveness for targeted symptoms is that more-effective treatments are more focused on patients' problems than are less-effective treatments. This conjecture was examined meta-analytically. Comparisons of two treatments of adults with anxiety disorders were included. Effect sizes for targeted symptoms, nontargeted symptoms, and global outcomes (e.g., quality of life and well-being) as well as the relative focus on patients' problems and researcher allegiance were coded. Metaregressions were conducted to predict effect sizes from (a) variables related to the focus on patients' problems and (b) researcher allegiance. For symptom measures, the relative focus on patients' problems predicted the relative effectiveness of the treatments, with the expectations created by explanation appearing more predictive than specific therapeutic actions focused on patients' problems, although conclusions about relative importance were difficult to determine given collinearity of predictors. Researcher allegiance also predicted the effects of the comparisons. For global outcomes, both the focus on patients' problems and researcher allegiance seemed to have smaller roles. A focus on patients' problems appears to be important for the reductions of symptoms. Clinical trials comparing treatments need to balance the focus on patients' problems and reduce researcher allegiance. (PsycINFO Database Record

In pursuit of truth: A critical examination of meta-analyses of cognitive behavior therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Three recent meta-analyses have made the claim, albeit with some caveats, that cognitive-behavioral treatments (CBT) are superior to other psychotherapies, in general or for specific disorders (e.g., social phobia). METHOD: The purpose of the present article was to examine four issues in meta-analysis that mitigate claims of CBT superiority: (a) effect size, power, and statistical significance, (b) focusing on disorder-specific symptom measures and ignoring other important indicators of psychological functioning, (c) problems inherent in classifying treatments provided in primary studies into classes of treatments, and (d) the inclusion of problematic trials, which biases the results, and the exclusion of trials that fail to find differences among treatments. RESULTS: When these issues are examined, the effects demonstrating the superiority of CBT are small, nonsignificant for the most part, limited to targeted symptoms, or are due to flawed primary studies. CONCLUSION: Meta-analytic evidence for the superiority of CBT in the three meta-analysis are nonexistent or weak.

The enduring effects of psychodynamic treatments vis-à-vis alternative treatments: A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis.

Although evidence suggests that the benefits of psychodynamic treatments are sustained over time, presently it is unclear whether these sustained benefits are superior to non-psychodynamic treatments. Additionally, the extant literature comparing the sustained benefits of psychodynamic treatments compared to alternative treatments is limited with methodological shortcomings. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a rigorous test of the growth of the benefits of psychodynamic treatments relative to alternative treatments across distinct domains of change (i.e., all outcome measures, targeted outcome measures, non-targeted outcome measures, and personality outcome measures). To do so, the study employed strict inclusion criteria to identify randomized clinical trials that directly compared at least one bona fide psychodynamic treatment and one bona fide non-psychodynamic treatment. Hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) was used to longitudinally model the impact of psychodynamic treatments compared to non-psychodynamic treatments at post-treatment and to compare the growth (i.e., slope) of effects beyond treatment completion. Findings from the present meta-analysis indicated that psychodynamic treatments and non-psychodynamic treatments were equally efficacious at post-treatment and at follow-up for combined outcomes (k=20), targeted outcomes (k=19), non-targeted outcomes (k=17), and personality outcomes (k=6). Clinical implications, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed.