2060
twierdzeń w rejestrze
661
opracowań badawczych
851
Dowodów empirycznych (FACT)
149
Granic wiedzy / niepewności
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
„We included 105 trials (13,933 patients)”
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)
Behavioral activation for depression: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102783
„We found no significant difference between BA and other therapies (k=27; SMD=0.04; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.18)”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Autistic and non-autistic midwives' experiences of caring for autistic women and birthing-people
Jakościowe
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2026.104933
„Mała próba jakościowa i perspektywa personelu, a nie bezpośrednia ocena wyników klinicznych kobiet.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Alliance Ruptures and Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Their Association
Metaanaliza
DOI: 10.1002/jclp.70192
„The meta-analysis does not directly test temporal or causal ordering and does not examine rupture repair as an intervention.”
Dowód empiryczny (Dane ze źródła)
Bringing cognitive behavioral therapy for nightmares to patients with trauma: increasing access and feasibility via primary and acute care
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1007/s44470-026-00108-5
„34 randomized so far; 85.1% interest in nightmare treatment; 76.5% initiated treatment.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Bringing cognitive behavioral therapy for nightmares to patients with trauma: increasing access and feasibility via primary and acute care
Inne / nieokreślone
DOI: 10.1007/s44470-026-00108-5
„The article focuses on access and feasibility and describes an ongoing pilot rather than a definitive efficacy trial.”
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.”
Niepewność / Granica dowodu
Efficacy of a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–Based Online Self-Help Group for Depression and Suicide Ideation: Randomized Controlled Trial
RCT
DOI: 10.2196/76028
„The program integrates structured CBT techniques with peer-led/self-help group dynamics.”