Hintergrund: Die Wirksamkeit suchtspezifischer Partnerschaftsinterventionen wurde fast ausschließlich in randomisiert kontrollierten Studiendesigns überprüft. Daher wird hier untersucht, ob eine suchtspezifische kognitive Partnerschaftsintervention unter stationären Versorgungsbedingungen mit Veränderungen in der Partnerschaftszufriedenheit und der psychischen Belastung assoziiert ist und welche Patienten besonders von der Partnerschaftsintervention profitieren. Patienten und Methoden: Es wurden routinemäßig erhobene Daten von 1843 Patienten mit Alkoholabhängigkeit, die in einer Partnerschaft leben, genutzt (M = 47,1 Jahre; 68,4% männlich). Erfasst wurden Prä- und Post-Daten (Behandlungsdauer M = 10,2 Wochen) zur Partnerschaftszufriedenheit (Partnerschaftsfragebogen) bzw. zum sozialen Druck (Skala zur Erfassung des sozialen Drucks). Von einer Substichprobe (n = 621) waren auch Angaben zur psychischen Belastung (Symptom-Checkliste-90-R) verfügbar. Verglichen wurden Patienten mit bzw. ohne freiwillig genutzte zusätzliche Partnerschaftsintervention während einer stationären Entwöhnungsbehandlung. Die Patienten wurden gematcht, um trotz fehlender Randomisierung mögliche Konfundierungen zu kontrollieren. Behandlungseffekte wurden über eine 2-faktorielle Varianzanalyse mit Messwiederholung berechnet und Prädiktoren wurden anhand von Entscheidungsbäumen identifiziert. Ergebnisse: Beide Gruppen zeigten eine signifikante Prä-post-Verbesserung hinsichtlich ihrer selbstberichteten Partnerschaftszufriedenheit und psychischen Belastung. Es fanden sich keine Gruppenunterschiede. Ähnlich verhält es sich mit den Prädiktoren: In beiden Interventionsgruppen war die initiale Partnerschaftszufriedenheit ein Prädiktor für die Verbesserung der Partnerschaftszufriedenheit und das Geschlecht Prädiktor für die Reduktion der psychischen Belastung. Schlussfolgerung: Die Ergebnisse deuten darauf hin, dass Partnerschaftsinterventionen im subjektiven Erleben der Patienten unter Versorgungsbedingungen kurzfristig keinen zusätzlichen positiven Effekt haben.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine predictors that lead to the utilization of Behavioural Couple Therapy (BCT) for patients with alcohol dependence (AD) in a ­European health care system and to identify groups that have a low probability of utilizing BCT. Methods: Using routinely collected data from a German rehabilitation clinic, a sample of 1,843 inpatients with AD living in a couple relationship was examined. Each patient could freely choose to participate in an addiction-specific BCT as a voluntary additional intervention during an inpatient treatment program. Results: The logistic regression analysis indicated that female gender, older age and a higher number of comorbid disorders were associated with a decreased probability of utilizing BCT. The decision tree found that for men, the lowest utilization rate was in the age range of 51–54 and from the age of 58 years; women with higher pressure by their partner in combination with more than 1 comorbid mental disorder and women with lower pressure by their partner (regardless of comorbid disorders) showed the lowest utilization rate. Conclusions: Certain subgroups of patients with AD are less likely to participate in BCT during inpatient treatment.

BackgroundIn many countries, humanistic psychotherapy (HPT) is viewed as a broad psychotherapeutic approach and is accepted in health care systems. To qualify for reimbursement by health insurance in Germany, psychotherapy approaches have to be evaluated positively by the German Scientific Board of Psychotherapy (GSBP). The GSBP examined HPT and its subapproaches based on an application by a number of professional organizations affiliated with HPT (Work Group Humanistic Psychotherapy, WGHPT). The GSBP came to the decision that none of the HPT subapproaches provided sufficient evidence to be evaluated as evidence based. Potential reasons for the discrepancy between international recognition of HPT and GSBP’s decision will be explored: researchers’ allegiance may have led to a risk of bias disadvantaging HPT. Furthermore, the evaluation criteria of the GSBP did not systematically consider whether HPT was conceptualized bona fide and implemented with sufficient treatment integrity in the studies.ObjectiveThis systematic review will re-examine the studies included in the review of the GSBP. Within 2 comparisons (HPT vs control and HPT vs other psychotherapeutic interventions), we will examine moderating effects of treatment quality (bona fide and treatment integrity) and allegiance on the effectiveness of HPT.MethodsThis review is based on the prior systematic review by the GSBP. The GSBP examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies with non-RCTs of HPT interventions for individuals with mental disorders. All studies suggested by the WGHPT were included; moreover, the GSBP conducted searches in standard electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX) and handsearches in relevant systematic reviews and contacted experts. A total of 2 independent GSBP reviewers performed study screening using a structured form. On the basis of the prior work of the GSBP, all studies that were positively screened by the GSBP will be included in this review. Data will be extracted independently by 4 authors. Standardized mean difference will be calculated, and possible publication bias will be tested using funnel plots and Egger test. A priori defined subgroup or meta-regression analyses will be performed for treatment quality, allegiance, type of nonactive control, study quality, type of subapproach, and target population (children and adolescents or adults).ResultsThe GSBP identified 115 eligible studies that will be reanalyzed in this systematic review.ConclusionsResults about moderator effects of treatment quality and allegiance will provide important information about their impact on the evaluation of HPT and other psychotherapy approaches and can be used for further evaluation methods.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019128983; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=128983International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/15140

BACKGROUND In many countries, humanistic psychotherapy (HPT) is viewed as a broad psychotherapeutic approach and is accepted in health care systems. To qualify for reimbursement by health insurance in Germany, psychotherapy approaches have to be evaluated positively by the German Scientific Board of Psychotherapy (GSBP). The GSBP examined HPT and its subapproaches based on an application by a number of professional organizations affiliated with HPT (Work Group Humanistic Psychotherapy, WGHPT). The GSBP came to the decision that none of the HPT subapproaches provided sufficient evidence to be evaluated as evidence based. Potential reasons for the discrepancy between international recognition of HPT and GSBP’s decision will be explored: researchers’ allegiance may have led to a risk of bias disadvantaging HPT. Furthermore, the evaluation criteria of the GSBP did not systematically consider whether HPT was conceptualized bona fide and implemented with sufficient treatment integrity in the studies. OBJECTIVE This systematic review will re-examine the studies included in the review of the GSBP. Within 2 comparisons (HPT vs control and HPT vs other psychotherapeutic interventions), we will examine moderating effects of treatment quality (bona fide and treatment integrity) and allegiance on the effectiveness of HPT. METHODS This review is based on the prior systematic review by the GSBP. The GSBP examined randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies with non-RCTs of HPT interventions for individuals with mental disorders. All studies suggested by the WGHPT were included; moreover, the GSBP conducted searches in standard electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX) and handsearches in relevant systematic reviews and contacted experts. A total of 2 independent GSBP reviewers performed study screening using a structured form. On the basis of the prior work of the GSBP, all studies that were positively screened by the GSBP will be included in this review. Data will be extracted independently by 4 authors. Standardized mean difference will be calculated, and possible publication bias will be tested using funnel plots and Egger test. A priori defined subgroup or meta-regression analyses will be performed for treatment quality, allegiance, type of nonactive control, study quality, type of subapproach, and target population (children and adolescents or adults). RESULTS The GSBP identified 115 eligible studies that will be reanalyzed in this systematic review. CONCLUSIONS Results about moderator effects of treatment quality and allegiance will provide important information about their impact on the evaluation of HPT and other psychotherapy approaches and can be used for further evaluation methods.