Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, The Netherlands; Leuphana University, Innovation Incubator, Division Health Trainings Online, Lueneburg, Germany.
Department of Clinical Psychology, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, The Netherlands.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Mar;34(2):130-40. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.01.002. Epub 2014 Jan 10.
Recent years have seen a near-doubling of the number of studies examining the effects of psychotherapies for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in adults. The present article integrates this new evidence with the older literature through a quantitative meta-analysis. A total of 41 studies (with 2132 patients meeting diagnostic criteria for GAD) were identified through systematic searches in bibliographical databases, and were included in the meta-analysis. Most studies examined the effects of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). The majority of studies used waiting lists as control condition. The pooled effect of the 38 comparisons (from 28 studies) of psychotherapy versus a control group was large (g=0.84; 95% CI: 0.71-0.97) with low to moderate heterogeneity. The effects based on self-report measures were somewhat lower than those based on clinician-rated instruments. The effects on depression were also large (g=0.71; 95% CI: 0.59-0.82). There were some indications for publication bias. The number of studies comparing CBT with other psychotherapies (e.g., applied relaxation) or pharmacotherapy was too small to draw conclusions about comparative effectiveness or the long-term effects. There were some indications that CBT was also effective at follow-up and that CBT was more effective than applied relaxation in the longer term.
近年来,研究成人广泛性焦虑障碍(GAD)心理治疗效果的研究数量几乎翻了一番。本文通过定量荟萃分析将新证据与旧文献相结合。通过在文献数据库中进行系统搜索,共确定了 41 项研究(共有 2132 名符合 GAD 诊断标准的患者),并将其纳入荟萃分析。大多数研究都检验了认知行为疗法(CBT)的效果。大多数研究将等待名单作为对照条件。38 项比较(来自 28 项研究)的荟萃分析结果表明,心理治疗与对照组的疗效较大(g=0.84;95%置信区间:0.71-0.97),异质性较低。基于自我报告测量的效果略低于基于临床医生评定的仪器的效果。对抑郁的影响也很大(g=0.71;95%置信区间:0.59-0.82)。存在一些出版偏倚的迹象。比较 CBT 与其他心理疗法(如应用放松)或药物治疗的研究数量太少,无法得出关于比较有效性或长期效果的结论。有迹象表明 CBT 在随访中也有效,而且在长期来看,CBT 比应用放松更有效。