Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (PSYCHOTHER PSYCHOSOM)

Publisher: International Federation for Medical Psychotherapy, Karger

Journal description

As the volume of literature in the fields of psychotherapy and psychosomatics continues to grow, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep abreast of new and important developments. Since its inception in the early sixties, ëPsychotherapy and Psychosomaticsí has provided readers with comprehensive coverage of the latest original research in these fields. The journal features editorials and review articles on current and controversial issues, original investigations of psychotherapy research and on the interface between medicine and behavioral sciences, as well as practical descriptions of psychotherapeutic models and techniques. Characterized by strong clinical orientation and rigorous methodological appraisal of contributions, ëPsychotherapy and Psychosomaticsí comprises a unique and vital reference to current research.

Current impact factor: 9.20

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 9.196
2013 Impact Factor 9.37
2012 Impact Factor 7.23
2011 Impact Factor 6.284
2010 Impact Factor 6
2009 Impact Factor 5.368
2008 Impact Factor 4.209
2007 Impact Factor 5.022
2006 Impact Factor 4.333
2005 Impact Factor 4.966
2004 Impact Factor 3.987
2003 Impact Factor 3.949
2002 Impact Factor 3.188
2001 Impact Factor 3.429
2000 Impact Factor 2.372
1999 Impact Factor 2.259
1998 Impact Factor 2.103
1997 Impact Factor 1.805
1996 Impact Factor 1.578
1995 Impact Factor 1.047
1994 Impact Factor 1.059
1993 Impact Factor 0.752
1992 Impact Factor 0.376

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 6.92
Cited half-life 7.70
Immediacy index 1.67
Eigenfactor 0.01
Article influence 2.19
Website Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics website
Other titles Psychotherapy and psychosomatics
ISSN 0033-3190
OCLC 1763071
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details


  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • On author's server or institutional server
    • Server must be non-commercial
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged
    • Must link to publisher version
  • Classification

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Since the cognitive revolution of the early 1950s, cognitions have been discussed as central components in the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses. Even though there is an extensive literature on the association between therapy-related cognitions such as irrational beliefs and psychological distress over the past 60 years, there is little meta-analytical knowledge about the nature of this association. Methods: The relationship between irrational beliefs and distress was examined based on a systematic review that included 100 independent samples, gathered in 83 primary studies, using a random-effect model. The overall effects as well as potential moderators were examined: (a) distress measure, (b) irrational belief measure, (c) irrational belief type, (d) method of assessment of distress, (e) nature of irrational beliefs, (f) time lag between irrational beliefs and distress assessment, (g) nature of stressful events, (h) sample characteristics (i.e. age, gender, income, and educational, marital, occupational and clinical status), (i) developer/validator status of the author(s), and (k) publication year and country. Results: Overall, irrational beliefs were positively associated with various types of distress, such as general distress, anxiety, depression, anger, and guilt (omnibus: r = 0.38). The following variables were significant moderators of the relationship between the intensity of irrational beliefs and the level of distress: irrational belief measure and type, stressful event, age, educational and clinical status, and developer/validator status of the author. Conclusions: Irrational beliefs and distress are moderately connected to each other; this relationship remains significant even after controlling for several potential covariates.
    Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 09/2015; DOI:10.1159/000441231

  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 08/2015; 84(5):259-261. DOI:10.1159/000437374
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is one of the most effective interventions for postnatal depression. However, few studies have evaluated the effect of CBT delivered via telephone for newborn mothers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of telephone-based CBT for postnatal depression at 6 weeks and 6 months postpartum. A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted in the postnatal units at 3 regional hospitals in Hong Kong. A total of 397 women with an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) score ≥10 on the second or third day postpartum were randomized to receive telephone-based CBT (n = 197) or standard care (n = 200). Primary outcome was the total EPDS score. A cutoff score of 9/10 on the EPDS was used to define women at risk of postnatal depression. Telephone-based CBT was associated with significantly lower depressive symptoms compared with standard care, when assessed at 6 weeks postpartum in the subgroups of mothers with minor depression (EPDS 10-12; difference = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.72-3.08; p = 0.002) and major depression (EPDS ≥13; difference = 5.00, 95% CI: 3.12-6.88; p < 0.001). The effect was sustained at 6 months postpartum in the subgroup with minor depression (difference = 1.20, 95% CI: 0.09-2.32; p = 0.034) but not significant in the subgroup with major depression (difference = 1.69, 95% CI: -0.10-3.47; p = 0.064). The proportion of women who satisfied our definition of postnatal depression was significantly lower in the intervention group at 6 weeks (difference = 23.3%, 95% CI: 13.7-33.0%; p < 0.001) and 6 months postpartum (difference = 11.4%, 95% CI: 1.9-20.8%; p = 0.019). Telephone-based CBT produced a significantly greater reduction in depressive symptoms than standard care during the postpartum period. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.
    Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 08/2015; 84(5):294-303. DOI:10.1159/000430449

  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 08/2015; 84(Suppl 1):48.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Patients with medically unexplained symp- toms (MUS) are difficult to treat and cause high health-care costs. Psychological interventions might be a beneficial op- tion for treating patients with MUS, but evidence is inconsis- tent. This meta-analysis compares the effectiveness of psy- chological interventions for MUS – delivered either by psy- chotherapists (PTs) or by general practitioners (GPs) – with that of usual care. Method: We conducted a systematic re- view and meta-analysis on randomised controlled trials of psychological interventions for MUS. Physical symptoms were the primary outcome, and physical functioning and psychological symptoms were the secondary outcomes. We pooled between-group effect sizes (ESs) after the treatment and at the follow-up in random-effects meta-regressions and stratified meta-analyses. We repeated these analyses with the intervention provider, intervention dose, MUS se- verity and methodological quality as predictors of relative intervention effects. Results: A total of 3,225 patients in 20 studies were analysed. After the treatment, small and sig- nificant ESs were found for all 3 outcome domains (ES range: 0.13–0.19, all p < 0.05). Psychological interventions were more beneficial for physical symptoms when delivered by PTs than by GPs (p = 0.02). There was no difference between PTs and GPs in terms of physical functioning and psycho- logical symptoms. Conclusion: Psychological interventions are effective for patients with MUS, but the effects are small and most likely of short duration. Interventions that are de- livered by PTs appear to have larger effects on unexplained physical symptoms than those delivered by GPs. Whether this superiority is due to a larger number of sessions of PT interventions remains unclear from our findings.
    Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 05/2015; 84(4):217-226. DOI:10.1159/000380914

  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 12/2014; 84(1):4-5. DOI:10.1159/000368586

  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 12/2014; 84(1):59-60. DOI:10.1159/000365420

  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 12/2014; 84(1):1-3. DOI:10.1159/000366041