Psychoanalytic psychotherapy has been proven in a variety of international research to be more effective at improving state of mind issues and alleviating distress than medication or other therapies and counselling.
It aims to both address current symptoms and to develop in a patient the capacity to better cope with life’s challenges. This ensures that improvements brought about in treatment are maintained long after treatment ends.
In studies appraising the benefits of the treatment, what researches call an 'effect size' is essentially the tool used to measure the effect of treatments or improvement in symptoms. It is an agreed criteria used to ensure that research around the world is conducted within the same parameters, meaning findings are universally comparable.
I have put together a list, by no means exhaustive, of studies that clearly underline the advantages of psychoanalytic psychotherapy over other treatments in addressing a range of clinical issues.
In the examples below, an effect size is a measure of the strength of a phenomenon. For the purposes of outlining/explaining the research cited below please consider 0.8 as excellent, 0.5 as average, and 0.2 as poor. When the examples refer to meta-analysis, these are effectively summary of findings of a number of studies in a common subject area.
Common mental health disorders:
|
A meta-analysis of 1,431 psychoanalytic psychotherapy patients revealed significant improvements in symptoms (0.97); with those benefits increasing by a further 50 per cent (1.51) when followed up long term. Improvements in patients brought about by psychoanalytic psychotherapy continued long after treatment ended.
Abbass, A. A., Hancock, J. T., Henderson, J., & Kisely, S. (2006). Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, Article No. CD004687.
|
Somatic Disorders:
|
One 2009 meta-analysis examined the short term use of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for dealing with somatic symptoms in 1,870 patients. It found the treatment to be very effective in improving general psychological symptoms as well as somatic symptoms - effect sizes of 0.69 for improvement in general psychiatric symptoms and 0.59 for improvement in somatic symptoms. The study also found short team treatment use reduced the need for further medical interventions.
Abbass, A., Kisely, S., & Kroenke, K. (2009). Short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for somatic disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78, 265–274. Long term psychoanalytic therapy v Short term therapy to treat complex disorders. Psychoanalytic psychotherapy was the most effective form of treatment, (1.03) with improvement continuing (1.25) long after end of treatment.
Leichsenring, F., & Rabung, S. (2008). Effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1551–1565.
|
Range of illness from moderate and mixed to severe pathology:
|
Significant and lasting improvements with psychoanalytic psychotherapy; 0.78 increasing to 0.94 long term follow up moderate pathology, and 0.94 increasing to 1.02 at long term follow up.
de Maat, S., de Jonghe, F., Schoevers, R.,& Dekker, J. (2009). The effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic therapy: A systematic review of empirical studies. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 17, 1–23.
|
Interested readers might find the article below by Shedler illuminating. In summary, the evidence in support of psychoanalytic psychotherapy as an effective and medically proven means of treatment is overwhelming and beyond doubt.
Shedler, J., (2010). The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65, 98-109.
Thank you to Paul Moore M.Sc. Carlow Kilkenny Psychotherapy for providing a succinct summary of relevant research which I have drawn from in collating the above section.