A multidimensional meta-analysis of treatments for depression, panic, and generalized anxiety disorder: an empirical examination of the status of empirically supported therapies.

Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders and Department of Psychology, Boston University, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (Impact Factor: 4.85). 01/2002; 69(6):875-99. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006X.69.6.875
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors report a meta-analysis of high-quality studies published from 1990-1998 on the efficacy of manualized psychotherapies for depression, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) that bear on the clinical utility and external validity of empirically supported therapies. The results suggest that a substantial proportion of patients with panic improve and remain improved; that treatments for depression and GAD produce impressive short-term effects: that most patients in treatment for depression and GAD do not improve and remain improved at clinically meaningful follow-up intervals: and that screening procedures used in many studies raise questions about generalizability, particularly in light of a systematic relation across studies between exclusion rates and outcome. The data suggest the importance of reporting, in both clinical trials and meta-analyses, a range of outcome indices that provide a more comprehensive, multidimensional portrait of treatment effects and their generalizability. These include exclusion rates, percent improved, percent recovered, percent who remained improved or recovered at follow-up, percent seeking additional treatment at follow-up, and data on both completer and intent-to-treat samples.

  • Journal of College Student Psychotherapy 04/2014; 28(2):97-116.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the 1990s several research projects and empirical studies (process and outcome) on Jungian Psychotherapy have been conducted mainly in Germany and Switzerland. Prospective, naturalistic outcome studies and retrospective studies using standardized instruments and health insurance data as well as several qualitative studies of aspects of the psychotherapeutic process will be summarized. The studies are diligently designed and the results are well applicable to the conditions of outpatient practice. All the studies show significant improvements not only on the level of symptoms and interpersonal problems, but also on the level of personality structure and in every day life conduct. These improvements remain stable after completion of therapy over a period of up to six years. Several studies show further improvements after the end of therapy, an effect which psychoanalysis has always claimed. Health insurance data show that, after Jungian therapy, patients reduce health care utilization to a level even below the average of the total population. Results of several studies show that Jungian treatment moves patients from a level of severe symptoms to a level where one can speak of psychological health. These significant changes are reached by Jungian therapy with an average of 90 sessions, which makes Jungian psychotherapy an effective and cost-effective method. Process studies support Jungian theories on psychodynamics and elements of change in the therapeutic process. So finally, Jungian psychotherapy has reached the point where it can be called an empirically proven, effective method.
    Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland). 12/2013; 3(4):562-75.
  • Source
    Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie 01/2011; 40(1):42-52. · 0.79 Impact Factor