Clinically representative therapy for Nordic adult outpatients with common mental health problems

A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Bibliographic Data

ID21391805
AuthorsMartin Brattmyr (0000-0003-2919-7698, Department of Psychology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway), Martin Schevik Lindberg (0000-0002-8874-587X, Department of Psychology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway), Jakob Lundqvist (0000-0003-3320-853X, Department of Psychology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway), Lars‐Göran Öst (0000-0002-4351-2810, Department of Psychology Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden), Stian Solem (0000-0002-6942-2645, Department of Psychology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway), Odin Hjemdal (0000-0002-6430-2345, Department of Psychology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway), Audun Havnen (0000-0002-4610-6842, Department of Psychology Norwegian University of Science and Technology Trondheim Norway)
Year2024
Volume65
Issue2
Pages311-320
Publication date2024-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueScandinavian Journal of Psychology (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0036-5564 • E-ISSN: 1467-9450
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/sjop.12976
LanguageEN
References cited42

There is a knowledge gap regarding clinically representative therapy given in routine settings, that is treatment as usual (TAU), for patients with common mental health problems (CMHP). This review and meta‐analysis aimed to investigate what characterizes clinically representative therapy in Nordic routine clinics and meta‐analyze the outcome of such treatment. Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and SveMed+) were searched for TAU, CMHP, and Nordic countries, together with backward and forward search in Scopus (7 November 2022). Studies were either randomized controlled trials (RCT) or open trials, using prospective study designs, examining heterogeneous outpatient groups in routine treatment. Within‐ and between‐group effect sizes (ES), using random effects model, and moderator analyses were calculated. Eleven studies ( n = 1,413), demonstrated a small to moderate within‐group ES with high heterogeneity ( g = 0.49, I 2 = 90%). ESs in RCTs were significantly smaller than in open trials. TAU had a marginally smaller ES ( g = −0.21; adjusted for publication bias g = −0.06) compared to a broad set of clinical interventions. Clinically representative therapy in the Nordic countries demonstrated a wide variety of characteristics and also a marginally lower ES compared to other interventions. The ESs were smaller than other meta‐analyses examining evidence‐based treatments in routine treatment

Tools

Open DOI