Prevalence of Different Approaches to Clinical Hypnosis:<i>Bridging Research and Practice</i>

McCann, Barbara S.

doi:10.1080/00207144.2023.2194934

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Almost two-thirds of respondents reported using video conferencing to provide hypnosis intervention and the majority of those professionals rated remote delivery to be as effective as in-person delivery. It is important to note that some have critiqued the survey in its effort to gather information about the “hypnosis styles” commonly used by respondents’ which had overlapping response options and unclear intention ( McCann, 2023 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analytic evidence on the efficacy of hypnosis for mental and somatic health issues: a 20-year perspective

Rosendahl,

Alldredge,

Haddenhorst

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionDocumented use and investigation of hypnosis spans centuries and its therapeutic use has received endorsement by multiple medical association. We conducted a comprehensive overview of meta-analyses examining the efficacy of hypnosis to provide a foundational understanding of hypnosis in evidence-based healthcare, insight into the safety of hypnosis interventions, and identification of gaps in the current research literature.MethodsIn our systematic review, meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of hypnosis in patients with mental or somatic health problems compared to any control condition published after the year 2000 were included. A comprehensive literature search using Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, HTA Database, Web of Science and a manual search was conducted to identify eligible reviews. Methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was rated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Effect estimates on various outcomes including at least three comparisons (k ≥ 3) were extracted and transformed into a common effect size metric (Cohen’s d). If available, information on the certainty of evidence for these outcomes (GRADE assessment) was obtained.ResultsWe included 49 meta-analyses with 261 distinct primary studies. Most robust evidence was reported for hypnosis in patients undergoing medical procedures (12 reviews, 79 distinct primary studies) and in patients with pain (4 reviews, 65 primary studies). There was a considerable overlap of the primary studies across the meta-analyses. Only nine meta-analyses were rated to have high methodological quality. Reported effect sizes comparing hypnosis against control conditions ranged from d = −0.04 to d = 2.72. Of the reported effects, 25.4% were medium (d ≥ 0.5), and 28.8% were large (d ≥ 0.8).DiscussionOur findings underline the potential of hypnosis to positively impact various mental and somatic treatment outcomes, with the largest effects found in patients experiencing pain, patients undergoing medical procedures, and in populations of children/adolescents. Future research should focus on the investigation of moderators of efficacy, on comparing hypnosis to established interventions, on the efficacy of hypnosis for children and adolescents, and on identifying patients who do not benefit from hypnosis.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023395514, identifier CRD42023395514

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%