1269
twierdzeń w rejestrze
390
opracowań badawczych
595
Dowodów empirycznych (FACT)
120
Granic wiedzy / niepewności
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Anna vs. Judith: A randomized comparison of AI-delivered psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral therapies for social anxiety disorder
RCT
DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2026.100960
„Therapeutic alliance was established early in both conditions and remained stable throughout treatment.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Anna vs. Judith: A randomized comparison of AI-delivered psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral therapies for social anxiety disorder
RCT
DOI: 10.1016/j.invent.2026.100960
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Increasing engagement with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using generative AI: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
RCT
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-025-01321-8
„a parallel, 2-arm, unblinded, randomized controlled trial (N = 540)”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Increasing engagement with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using generative AI: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
RCT
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-025-01321-8
„The genAI solution increases engagement frequency (2.4×) and duration (3.8×) compared to digital workbooks.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Increasing engagement with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using generative AI: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
RCT
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-025-01321-8
„We observe comparable outcomes for anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9).”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Increasing engagement with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using generative AI: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
RCT
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-025-01321-8
„Adverse events were comparable overall.”
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
Increasing engagement with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using generative AI: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
RCT
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-025-01321-8
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Increasing engagement with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) using generative AI: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)
RCT
DOI: 10.1038/s43856-025-01321-8
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
The efficacy of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08634-5
„Eighteen studies involving 1,705 participants contributed 19 comparisons.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
The efficacy of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08634-5
„No statistically significant difference in post-intervention OCD symptom severity was observed between dCBT and face-to-face CBT.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
The efficacy of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08634-5
„dCBT was associated with significantly lower post-intervention OCD symptom severity than active psychological controls and passive controls.”
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
The efficacy of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08634-5
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
The efficacy of digital cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-026-08634-5
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
Does More Mean Better? Treatment Intensity and Predictors of Clinically Significant Change in Suicidal Ideation During Dialectical Behaviour Therapy
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1002/cpp.70336
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Does group size matter? An evaluation of the impact of group size on DBT skills training outcomes
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1017/s1754470x26100889
„Routinely collected data were analysed for 206 adults ... 12 participants (n = 103) or 20 participants (n = 103).”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Does group size matter? An evaluation of the impact of group size on DBT skills training outcomes
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1017/s1754470x26100889
„Independent samples t-tests indicated no significant differences in treatment outcomes between smaller and larger groups (p =.300, d = 0.15).”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Does group size matter? An evaluation of the impact of group size on DBT skills training outcomes
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1017/s1754470x26100889
„Drop-out rates were comparable across formats (36% vs 43%).”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Does group size matter? An evaluation of the impact of group size on DBT skills training outcomes
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1017/s1754470x26100889
„The evaluation was under-powered to detect small effects.”
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
Does group size matter? An evaluation of the impact of group size on DBT skills training outcomes
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1017/s1754470x26100889
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.
Wniosek pośredni / Interpretacja
Does group size matter? An evaluation of the impact of group size on DBT skills training outcomes
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1017/s1754470x26100889
Brak zarejestrowanego dosłownego cytatu.