Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
: Integrating a stronger focus on patients' existing strengths in traditional psychotherapy approaches is suggested by recent developments in psychological science, positive psychology, and psychotherapy research. However, the empirical status of treatments focusing on patients' existing strengths is unclear. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42017054362) of studies on adaptations of traditional treatment approaches (e. g., cognitive-behavior therapy or psychodynamic therapy) explicitly focused on using patients' existing resources and strengths (hereafter, resource-focused treatments; RFT). : Extensive systematic literature search yielded k = 11 treatment comparisons from 10 studies contrasting RFTs with either an alternative psychotherapeutic approach or wait list. Effect sizes controlling for pre-treatment differences (g) and standard Hedges's g effect sizes (g) were aggregated with random-effects methods : Across 8 direct comparisons, RFTs were superior to other psychotherapeutic approaches, as indicated by small to moderate (g = -0.349, 95 % CI -0.576, -0.122, p = .003, I2 = 46.50 %) and small effect sizes (gPOWC = -0.190, 95 % CI -0.355, -0.025, p = .024, I = 0.00 %) in favor of RFTs. Sensitivity analyses corroborated results. Many included studies were characterized by limited sample size, risk of bias or researcher allegiance. : This meta-analysis showed preliminary evidence for the benefits of RFTs and suggests an intensification of further research efforts. The evidence was most convincing for hypnotherapeutic-systemic interventions as an add-on for cognitive-behavioral therapy.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2019.65.2.144 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!