Although evidence suggests that the benefits of psychodynamic treatments are sustained over time, presently it is unclear whether these sustained benefits are superior to non-psychodynamic treatments. Additionally, the extant literature comparing the sustained benefits of psychodynamic treatments compared to alternative treatments is limited with methodological shortcomings. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a rigorous test of the growth of the benefits of psychodynamic treatments relative to alternative treatments across distinct domains of change (i.e., all outcome measures, targeted outcome measures, non-targeted outcome measures, and personality outcome measures). To do so, the study employed strict inclusion criteria to identify randomized clinical trials that directly compared at least one bona fide psychodynamic treatment and one bona fide non-psychodynamic treatment. Hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) was used to longitudinally model the impact of psychodynamic treatments compared to non-psychodynamic treatments at post-treatment and to compare the growth (i.e., slope) of effects beyond treatment completion. Findings from the present meta-analysis indicated that psychodynamic treatments and non-psychodynamic treatments were equally efficacious at post-treatment and at follow-up for combined outcomes (k=20), targeted outcomes (k=19), non-targeted outcomes (k=17), and personality outcomes (k=6). Clinical implications, directions for future research, and limitations are discussed.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2024.
All research outputs
#1,511,260
of 34,317,218 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Psychology Review
#400
of 1,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,018
of 308,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Psychology Review
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,317,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
