心理干预的不良事件:心理干预的不良事件:定义、评估、研究现状以及对研究和临床实践的影响》。

IF 16.3 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics Pub Date : 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1159/000540212
Jan Philipp Klein, Alexander Rozental, Svenja Sürig, Steffen Moritz
{"title":"心理干预的不良事件:心理干预的不良事件:定义、评估、研究现状以及对研究和临床实践的影响》。","authors":"Jan Philipp Klein, Alexander Rozental, Svenja Sürig, Steffen Moritz","doi":"10.1159/000540212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of psychological interventions is undisputed. But while in other fields of health care the safety of interventions is studied alongside effectiveness, adverse events (AEs) have only recently been assessed in clinical studies of psychological interventions. This critical review summarizes the definition, assessment and current research status of AEs of psychological interventions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>AEs are defined as any untoward event or unfavorable change that occurs in the course of a psychological intervention. AEs that are caused by the intervention can be classified into side effects of correctly applied treatment, malpractice (i.e., incorrectly applied treatment) and unethical conduct (e.g., sexual abuse). Ideally, they are assessed by independent raters or alternatively by self-report questionnaires that should also cover serious adverse events (SAEs, e.g., suicide attempts or self-injurious behaviors). About 1 to 2 in 3 patients report at least 1 AE and results of meta-analyses suggest that treatments might differ in frequency and/or severity of AE and in treatment acceptability (measured as dropout rates).</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Measures of AEs and SAEs as well as more nuanced descriptions of dropout should be included in all clinical studies of psychological interventions. If this happens, we might learn that psychological interventions differ with respect to AEs, SAEs and acceptability. As many psychological interventions are about equally effective, they might one day be chosen based on differences in their safety profile rather than their differential effectiveness. Ideally, reducing AEs might also lead to more effective interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adverse Events of Psychological Interventions: Definitions, Assessment, Current State of the Research and Implications for Research and Clinical Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Jan Philipp Klein, Alexander Rozental, Svenja Sürig, Steffen Moritz\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000540212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of psychological interventions is undisputed. But while in other fields of health care the safety of interventions is studied alongside effectiveness, adverse events (AEs) have only recently been assessed in clinical studies of psychological interventions. This critical review summarizes the definition, assessment and current research status of AEs of psychological interventions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>AEs are defined as any untoward event or unfavorable change that occurs in the course of a psychological intervention. AEs that are caused by the intervention can be classified into side effects of correctly applied treatment, malpractice (i.e., incorrectly applied treatment) and unethical conduct (e.g., sexual abuse). Ideally, they are assessed by independent raters or alternatively by self-report questionnaires that should also cover serious adverse events (SAEs, e.g., suicide attempts or self-injurious behaviors). About 1 to 2 in 3 patients report at least 1 AE and results of meta-analyses suggest that treatments might differ in frequency and/or severity of AE and in treatment acceptability (measured as dropout rates).</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Measures of AEs and SAEs as well as more nuanced descriptions of dropout should be included in all clinical studies of psychological interventions. If this happens, we might learn that psychological interventions differ with respect to AEs, SAEs and acceptability. As many psychological interventions are about equally effective, they might one day be chosen based on differences in their safety profile rather than their differential effectiveness. Ideally, reducing AEs might also lead to more effective interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540212\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000540212","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心理干预的有效性毋庸置疑。但在其他医疗保健领域,在研究有效性的同时也会研究干预措施的安全性,而不良事件(AEs)直到最近才在心理干预的临床研究中得到评估。本评论总结了心理干预不良事件的定义、评估和研究现状。摘要:不良事件的定义是在心理干预过程中发生的任何意外事件或不利变化。由干预引起的AE可分为正确应用治疗的副作用、不当行为(即错误应用治疗)和不道德行为(如性虐待)。理想情况下,这些副作用由独立的评定人员进行评估,或者通过自我报告问卷进行评估,其中还应包括严重不良事件(SAE,如自杀企图或自伤行为)。大约每 3 名患者中就有 1 到 2 人报告至少 1 次不良反应,荟萃分析结果表明,治疗方法在不良反应发生频率和/或严重程度以及治疗可接受性(以辍药率衡量)方面可能存在差异:关键信息:在所有心理干预临床研究中,都应包括对AE和SAE的测量,以及对辍学率更细致的描述。如果这样做了,我们可能会了解到心理干预在AEs、SAEs和可接受性方面存在差异。由于许多心理干预措施的效果大致相同,有朝一日,人们可能会根据其安全性方面的差异,而不是疗效的差异来选择心理干预措施。理想的情况是,减少AEs也可能带来更有效的干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Adverse Events of Psychological Interventions: Definitions, Assessment, Current State of the Research and Implications for Research and Clinical Practice.

Background: The effectiveness of psychological interventions is undisputed. But while in other fields of health care the safety of interventions is studied alongside effectiveness, adverse events (AEs) have only recently been assessed in clinical studies of psychological interventions. This critical review summarizes the definition, assessment and current research status of AEs of psychological interventions.

Summary: AEs are defined as any untoward event or unfavorable change that occurs in the course of a psychological intervention. AEs that are caused by the intervention can be classified into side effects of correctly applied treatment, malpractice (i.e., incorrectly applied treatment) and unethical conduct (e.g., sexual abuse). Ideally, they are assessed by independent raters or alternatively by self-report questionnaires that should also cover serious adverse events (SAEs, e.g., suicide attempts or self-injurious behaviors). About 1 to 2 in 3 patients report at least 1 AE and results of meta-analyses suggest that treatments might differ in frequency and/or severity of AE and in treatment acceptability (measured as dropout rates).

Key messages: Measures of AEs and SAEs as well as more nuanced descriptions of dropout should be included in all clinical studies of psychological interventions. If this happens, we might learn that psychological interventions differ with respect to AEs, SAEs and acceptability. As many psychological interventions are about equally effective, they might one day be chosen based on differences in their safety profile rather than their differential effectiveness. Ideally, reducing AEs might also lead to more effective interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
29.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field. As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers. The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.
期刊最新文献
Childhood Trauma and the Immune System: A Complex Interaction That Can Lead to Biopsychosocial Pathogenesis. Rise in Persistent Somatic Syndromes: A Relationship with Systemic Changes in Healthcare? Response to Philips et al.: Several Fundamental Misconceptions about Evidence-Based Practice. Erratum. Erratum.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1