4.4 Review

A systematic review of predictors and moderators of improvement in cognitive-behavioral therapy for panic disorder and agoraphobia

期刊

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 179-192

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.09.004

关键词

Panic disorder; Agoraphobia; CBT; Predictors; Moderators; Treatment outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite the considerable efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for panic disorder (PD) and agoraphobia, a substantial minority of patients fail to improve for reasons that are poorly understood. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify consistent predictors and moderators of improvement in CBT for PD and agoraphobia. Data sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis of articles was conducted using PsycInfo and PubMed. Search terms included panic, agoraphobi*, cognitive behavio*, CBT, cognitive therapy, behavio* therapy, CT, BT, exposure, and cognitive restructuring. Study selection: Studies were limited to those employing semi-structured diagnostic interviews and examining change on panic- or agoraphobia-specific measures. Data extraction: The first author extracted data on study characteristics, prediction analyses, effect sizes, and indicators of study quality. Interrater reliability was confirmed. Synthesis: 52 papers met inclusion criteria. Agoraphobic avoidance was the most consistent predictor of decreased improvement, followed by low expectancy for change, high levels of functional impairment, and Cluster C personality pathology. Other variables were consistently unrelated to improvement in CBT, understudied, or inconsistently related to improvement. Limitations: Many studies were underpowered and failed to report effect sizes. Tests of moderation were rare. Conclusions: Apart from agoraphobic avoidance, few variables consistently predict improvement in CBT for PD and/or agoraphobia across studies. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据