1768
twierdzeń w rejestrze
531
opracowań badawczych
820
Dowodów empirycznych (FACT)
107
Granic wiedzy / niepewności
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Randomized controlled evidence of the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102786
„full-model ACT was not superior ... (g = -0.01, p = .86)”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Randomized controlled evidence of the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102786
„lack of preregistration ... inadequate statistical power ... limited use of intent-to-treat analyses”
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
Randomized controlled evidence of the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102786
„comparison ... to bona fide psychotherapies”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Twenty-one studies were included in the scoping review.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Seven databases were searched; 1,899 records were identified and 21 studies were included.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Most interventions were text-based, CBT-informed, and at an early stage of development.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
„Moderate-to-high usability, therapeutic alliance and satisfaction were reported; inaccurate or contextually misaligned outputs eroded trust.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Generative AI mental health chatbots: a scoping review of intervention design and user experience
Przegląd systematyczny
DOI: 10.1038/s41746-026-02972-0
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Behavioral activation for depression: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102783
„SMD of BA for adult outpatients compared with control conditions was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.80; k=61)”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Behavioral activation for depression: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102783
„high heterogeneity (I² = 71%) and a broad 95% prediction interval (-0.11 to 1.46)”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Case study: The DBT implementation journey of dialectical behaviour therapy in five European countries
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1186/s40479-026-00359-x
„Case study: The DBT implementation journey of dialectical behaviour therapy in five European countries.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Case study: The DBT implementation journey of dialectical behaviour therapy in five European countries
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1186/s40479-026-00359-x
„DBT experts in each country provided narrative accounts, considered with existing DBT implementation frameworks.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Case study: The DBT implementation journey of dialectical behaviour therapy in five European countries
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1186/s40479-026-00359-x
„Common themes included national guidelines, university affiliations, national societies, consultation teams, therapist training, fidelity and organizational support.”
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
Case study: The DBT implementation journey of dialectical behaviour therapy in five European countries
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1186/s40479-026-00359-x
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Case study: The DBT implementation journey of dialectical behaviour therapy in five European countries
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1186/s40479-026-00359-x
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS n=79, APP n=39; separately recruited waitlist n=48.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS consisted of seven sessions; 61% completed all sessions and 84% attended at least five.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS baseline-to-post difference ... d=1.38.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„COS showed a significantly greater reduction ... compared with waitlist ... d=0.68.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„BSS T1 COS 9.78; T2 COS 6.01; within-group d=0.71.”