Fonagy Peter
Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, and The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.
World Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;14(2):137-50. doi: 10.1002/wps.20235.
This paper provides a comprehensive review of outcome studies and meta-analyses of effectiveness studies of psychodynamic therapy (PDT) for the major categories of mental disorders. Comparisons with inactive controls (waitlist, treatment as usual and placebo) generally but by no means invariably show PDT to be effective for depression, some anxiety disorders, eating disorders and somatic disorders. There is little evidence to support its implementation for post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, cocaine dependence or psychosis. The strongest current evidence base supports relatively long-term psychodynamic treatment of some personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder. Comparisons with active treatments rarely identify PDT as superior to control interventions and studies are generally not appropriately designed to provide tests of statistical equivalence. Studies that demonstrate inferiority of PDT to alternatives exist, but are small in number and often questionable in design. Reviews of the field appear to be subject to allegiance effects. The present review recommends abandoning the inherently conservative strategy of comparing heterogeneous "families" of therapies for heterogeneous diagnostic groups. Instead, it advocates using the opportunities provided by bioscience and computational psychiatry to creatively explore and assess the value of protocol-directed combinations of specific treatment components to address the key problems of individual patients.
本文全面回顾了针对主要精神障碍类型的心理动力疗法(PDT)疗效研究和有效性研究的荟萃分析。与无活性对照(等待名单、常规治疗和安慰剂)相比,一般而言但并非总是显示PDT对抑郁症、某些焦虑症、进食障碍和躯体障碍有效。几乎没有证据支持将其用于创伤后应激障碍、强迫症、神经性贪食症、可卡因依赖或精神病。目前最有力的证据基础支持对某些人格障碍进行相对长期的心理动力治疗,尤其是边缘型人格障碍。与积极治疗方法的比较很少表明PDT优于对照干预措施,而且研究通常设计不当,无法提供统计等效性检验。有研究表明PDT不如其他替代方法,但数量较少且设计往往存在问题。该领域的综述似乎受到忠诚效应的影响。本综述建议摒弃比较针对异质性诊断组的异质性“疗法家族”这种本质上保守的策略。相反,它主张利用生物科学和计算精神病学提供的机会,创造性地探索和评估特定治疗成分的方案导向组合对解决个体患者关键问题的价值。