JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

In many countries, humanistic psychotherapy (HPT) is viewed as a broad psychotherapeutic approach and 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 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 two comparisons (HPT vs. control; HPT vs. other psychotherapeutic interventions), we will examine moderating effects of treatment quality (bona fide/treatment integrity) and allegiance on the effectiveness of HPT.

Methods:

The current review is based on the prior systematic review by the GSBP. The GSBP examined RCTs and studies with non-randomized controlled trials 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, Psyndex), handsearch in relevant systematic reviews and contacted experts. Study screening was performed by two independent GSBP-reviewers using a structured form. Based on the prior work of the GSBP, all studies that were positively screened by the GSBP will enter the present review. Data will be extracted independently by four authors. Standardized mean difference will be calculated and possible publication bias will be tested using funnel plots and Egger’s test. A priori defined subgroup or meta-regression analyses will be performed concerning treatment quality, allegiance, type of non-active control, study quality, type of subapproach and target population (children/adolescents; adults).

Results:

The systematic review was submitted for registration in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number: CRD42019128983). The GSBP identified 115 eligible studies that will be re-analysed in the following 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. Clinical Trial: PROSPERO CRD42019128983128983