Skip to main content
Download PDF

The difference between shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BMC Psychiatry volume 23, Article number: 438 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The optimal psychotherapy duration for mental health disorders is unclear. Our aim was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders.

Method

We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished randomised clinical trials assessing different durations of the same psychotherapy type before June 27, 2022. Our methodology was based on Cochrane and an eight-step procedure. Primary outcomes were quality of life, serious adverse events, and symptom severity. Secondary outcomes were suicide or suicide-attempts, self-harm, and level of functioning.

Results

We included 19 trials randomising 3,447 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias. Three single trials met the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 6 versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality when assessing quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning. One single trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions to 8 and 12 weeks of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between 20 weeks versus 3 years of psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- or anxiety disorders when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. It was only possible to conduct two pre-planned meta-analyses. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders on anxiety symptoms at end of treatment (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.63; p = 0.77; I2 = 73%; four trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.40; p = 0.20; I2 = 21%; two trials; very low certainty).

Conclusions

The evidence for shorter versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders is currently unclear. We only identified 19 randomised clinical trials. More trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors assessing participants at different levels of psychopathological severity are urgently needed.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019128535.

Peer Review reports

Background

The annual prevalence of mental health disorders is estimated to be 38.2% of the European population [1]. The economic burden from mental health disorders is high, both because of direct health care costs, but also because of indirect costs like sick days, disability, and early retirement [1,2,3]. Psychotherapy is among the recommended and widely used interventions for most disorders [4]. Accordingly, it would be highly relevant to identify the optimal duration of psychotherapy for various mental health disorders and conditions. If short-term psychotherapy is the optimal treatment approach for a given disorder, this could result in a reduction of waitlists and thus a greater access to evidence-based care. On the contrary, if long-term psychotherapy is the most optimal treatment, it would be sensible for mental health systems to invest in these treatments, as they would translate into greater long-term health and occupational benefits [5, 6].

The relationship between dose and effect in psychotherapy has been studied with mixed results in non-controlled studies [5, 7]. While several non-controlled studies indicate that there is a linear or negatively accelerating relationship between number of psychotherapy sessions and outcome for most mental health disorders [8, 9], these findings have been criticized on methodological grounds [10].

The inconclusiveness of the existing research and the general lack of internal validity of non-controlled studies [11, 12] indicate the need for a systematic review of well-designed randomised clinical trials directly comparing psychotherapies of different durations for clearly specified populations, including patients treated for mental health disorders in secondary mental health care settings [11, 12]. However, such systematic review has not previously been performed [6].

The present systematic review aims at forming the basis for evidence-based guideline recommendations for the optimal duration of psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders taking both benefits and harms, bias risk (systematic errors), play of chance (random errors), and certainty of the findings into consideration.

Methods

We report this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [13] A PRISMA 2020 checklist can be found in Supplementary material 1. The Cochrane methodology used in this systematic review is described in detail in our protocol [6], which was also registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019128535) prior to the systematic literature search.

Search strategy and selection criteria

Electronic searches

An experienced information specialist searched for eligible trials comparing a shorter with a longer-term version of the same psychotherapy type for one or more adult mental health published before June 27, 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), PsycINFO, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science (CPCI-S), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities (CPCI-SSH). The electronic search strategies can be found in Supplementary material 2. Additionally, we checked the reference lists of relevant publications for any unidentified trials, and we hand searched conference abstracts from psychiatry conferences for relevant trials. We also considered unpublished and gray literature trials if these were identified.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We only included randomized clinical trials. Trials were included irrespective of setting, publication status, publication year, language, and the reporting of our outcomes. We relied on the trialists defining their compared interventions as shorter and longer-term (or similar terminology). We did not include cluster randomized trials, quasi randomized trials, or observational studies.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Two review authors (SJ, CKJ) independently screened relevant trials, extracted data using a standardised data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias according to the Risk of Bias (ROB) assessment tool provided in Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions [14]. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or, if required, through discussion with a third author (JCJ, SS). We contacted trial authors by e-mail if relevant data were unclear or missing. For more information on our risk of bias assessments, see our protocol [6].

Outcomes and subgroup analyses

Our primary outcomes were quality of life, serious adverse events (as defined by the ICH-GCP guidelines) [15], and symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were suicide or suicide attempts (dichotomous data), self-harm (dichotomous data), and level of functioning. For all outcomes, we used the trial results reported at the time point closest to the end of treatment in the long-term treatment group.

We planned the following subgroup analyses on our primary outcomes:

  • High risk of bias trials compared to low risk of bias trials

  • Types of mental health disorders

  • Types of psychotherapy comparisons

  • Trials above and below the mean difference in intervention lengths

Assessment of statistical and clinical significance

We performed our meta-analyses according to the recommendations stated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [14], Keus et al. [16], and the eight-step procedure suggested by Jakobsen et al. [17] for better validation of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews. Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 16 were used for all meta-analyses [18, 19]. We planned to use risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes assessed with homogeneous measures, and standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with heterogeneous measures. We reported both the random-effects and the fixed-effect meta-analysis results, but primarily emphasized the most conservative result (highest P value) of the two results, and considered the less conservative results a sensitivity analysis [17]. We used the best–worst/worst-best case scenarios to assess the potential impact of missing outcome data [6, 17]. We planned to use Trial Sequential Analysis to control for random errors and to report Trial Sequental Analysis-adjusted CIs if the cumulative Z-curves did not reach the futility area or passed the diversity-adjusted required information size (DARIS) [6, 17, 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Trial Sequential Analysis estimates the DARIS (that is the number of participants needed in a meta-analysis to detect or reject a certain intervention effect). When analysing continuous outcomes, we pragmatically anticipated an intervention effect equal to the MD of the observed SD/2 [29]. Heterogeneity was assessed by calculating inconsistency (I2) for traditional meta-analyses and diversity (D2) for Trial Sequential Analysis. If it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis to estimate if there was enough information, we calculated the required information size for each single trial result and assessed if there was adequate power to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects of single trial results. For dichotomous outcomes, we used the proportion of participants with an event in the control group, a relative risk reduction of 20%, an alpha of 1.4%, and a beta of 20% as predefined in our protocol [6]. For continuous outcomes, we used the observed mean and standard deviation for the control group, the observed mean in the control group plus or minus the observed standard deviation in the control group/2 for the experimental group, an alpha of 1.4%, and a beta of 20% as predefined in our protocol [6]. We assessed a total of six primary and secondary outcome and, hence, considered a p-value of 0.014 as the threshold for statistical significance [17, 30]. We performed independent samples t-tests to calculate p-values for single trial results for continuous outcomes, and Fisher’s exact test for single trial results for dichotomous outcomes. We used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence [17, 31,32,33].

Results

Study characteristics

On June 27, 2022 our literature search identified a total of 31,689 records after duplicates were removed (Fig. 1). We included 19 randomised clinical trials enrolling a total of 3,447 participants [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52] (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished) (Supplementary material 3). A list of excludes studies with reasons can be found in Supplementary material 4.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram

Full size image

Characteristics of included trials can be found in Table 1. All trials were assessed as at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5). Five trials assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders [36,37,38, 42, 48]. Four trials assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for major depressive disorder [39,40,41, 43]. Three trials assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for major depressive disorder [40, 41, 44]. Two trials assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders [34, 35]. Three trials assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term prolonged exposure for post-traumatic stress disorder [46, 47, 49]. One trial assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term interpersonal therapy for major depressive disorder [39]. One trial assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder [45]. One trial assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder [51]. One factorial trial compared internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for 8 versus 12 weeks with or without booster sessions for depression and anxiety [50]. One trial assessed the difference between shorter- and longer-term dialectical behavioural therapy for borderline personality disorder [52, 53] (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished).

Table 1 Characteristics of included trials
Full size table

All trials compared different durations (weeks of treatment), dosages (number of sessions), and session lengths (minutes) (Table 1). Furthermore, trialists’ definitions of short-term and long-term psychotherapy were not consistent across studies. Most trials compared different numbers of sessions delivered over different durations (e.g. 8 sessions delivered over 8 weeks compared with 16 sessions delivered over 16 weeks) [34, 35, 40,41,42, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51] (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished). Some trials compared different numbers of sessions delivered over the same duration (e.g. six sessions delivered over 12 weeks compared with 12 sessions delivered over 12 weeks) [37, 38]. Some trials compared the same number of sessions over different durations (e.g. 10 sessions delivered over two weeks compared with 10 sessions delivered over 10 weeks) [36, 39, 46, 49]. Two trials compared the same number of sessions, but with different sessions lengths in minutes (e.g. 10–15 sessions of 60 min compared with 10–15 sessions of 90 min) [43, 47]. We planned to assess serious adverse events. However, only one of the trials reported on this outcome (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished). For several of our review outcomes it was not possible to conduct meta-analysis due to insufficient data. Four trials did not report the results in a usable way [40,41,42,43], i.e. they reported the results on a graph and/or did not include standard deviations for each point estimate on a group level. We contacted trial authors to receive relevant data, but we have not received any responses. It was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analyses to assess the risk of random errors on any of our review outcomes because of lack of relevant data. Only a few trials reported on our dichotomous outcomes, and the continuous outcomes were assessed with heterogeneous measures. We therefore performed sample size calculations for all single trial results to estimate the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects for all outcomes. Results of these sample size calculations can be found in Supplementary material 6.

Due to the large heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and lengths of trials included in this review, we will present the single trial results first. Second, we will present the meta-analysis results.

Single trial results

Trials including participants with borderline personality disorder

We identified one trial randomising 240 participants with borderline personality disorder to six months versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy [52, 53] (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished). We retrieved the data through the published trial report and personal communication with the trialists. This trial reported data on all our pre-defined review outcomes. It was not possible to include the trial in a pre-defined meta-analysis, as it was the only trial including participants with borderline personality disorder. The trial reached their pre-calculated sample size of 240 participants [52, 53]. The trial showed no evidence of a difference between short-term and long-term dialectical behavioral therapy when assessing quality of life (p = 0.831, required information size reached), serious adverse events (p = 1, required information size not reached), symptom severity (p = 0.833, required information size reached), suicide or suicide attempts (p = 1, required information size not reached), self-harm (p = 0.28, required information size not reached), and level of functioning (p = 0.731, required information size reached) (Table 2, Supplementary material 6). This trial was assessed as at overall high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel, and due to incomplete outcome data (Supplementary material 5), and the certainty of evidence was assessed as “very low” for all outcomes (Supplementary material 7).

Table 2 Single trial results
Full size table

Trials including participants with mood- and anxiety disorders

We identified three trials assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders [34, 35, 50].

One trial randomising 229 participants with mood- and anxiety disorders to 20 weeks versus 156 weeks of psychodynamic psychotherapy [34] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.037, required information size reached), considering our adjusted threshold for significance was pre-defined at 0.014 in our protocol [6], or level of functioning (p = 0.066, required information size reached). The trial almost reached their sample size (230 participants) [34], but it was unclear whether this sample size was pre-defined. One trial randomising 167 participants with mood- and anxiety disorders to 20 weeks versus 80 weeks of psychodynamic psychotherapy [35] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing the proportion of participants with a suicide or a suicide attempts (zero events in both groups) or level of functioning (p = 0.889, required information size not reached) (Table 2, Supplementary material 6). Both trials were assessed at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5) and the certainty of evidence was assessed as “very low” for all outcomes (Supplementary material 8). These two trials are included in a meta-analysis (see below).

We also identified one factorial trial randomising 496 participants with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders to internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for 8 versus 12 weeks with or without 3 booster sessions [50]. This trial showed no evidence of a difference when assessing quality of life for either of the two pairwise comparisons (8 weeks versus 8 weeks plus boosters p = 0.858; 12 weeks versus 12 weeks plus boosters p = 0.089; required information size reached). The trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions in both pairwise comparisons when assessing symptom severity (8 weeks versus 8 weeks plus boosters p = 0.01; 12 weeks versus 12 weeks plus boosters p = 0.01; required information size reached) and level of functioning (8 weeks versus 8 weeks plus boosters p = 0.01; 12 weeks versus 12 weeks plus boosters p = 0.01; required information size reached) (Table 2, Supplementary material 6). Both trials were assessed at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5), and the certainty of evidence was assessed as “very low” for all outcomes (Supplementary materials 9 and 10).

Trials including participants with major depressive disorder

We identified five trials including eight comparisons assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for participants with major depressive disorder [39,40,41, 43, 44]. Four trials compared shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for major depressive disorder [39,40,41, 43]. Three trials compared shorter- versus longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for major depressive disorder [40, 41, 44]. One trial compared shorter- versus longer-term interpersonal therapy for major depressive disorder [39]. It was not possible to perform meta-analyses, as the trials differed in the assessed psychotherapy traditions, and only two trials reported on our pre-defined review outcomes [39, 44].

One trial randomising 200 participants with major depressive disorder to once- versus twice weekly cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal therapy [39] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing quality of life and symptom severity for either cognitive behavioral therapy (p = 0.77 and p = 0.38, required information size not reached) or interpersonal therapy (p = 0.14 and p = 0.42, required information size not reached). One trial randomising 103 participants with major depressive disorder to eight versus 16 sessions of short-term psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy [44] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing quality of life (p = 0.911, required information size not reached) or symptom severity (p = 0.512, required information size not reached) (Table 2, Supplementary material 6). Both trials were assessed at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5) and the certainty of evidence was assessed as “very low” for all outcomes (Supplementary materials 11, 12, and 13).

Trials including participants with post-traumatic stress disorder

We identified five trials assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for participants with post-traumatic stress disorder [45,46,47, 49, 51]. Three trials compared shorter- versus longer-term prolonged exposure for post-traumatic stress disorder [46, 47, 49]. One trial compared shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioral therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder [45]. One trial compared shorter- versus longer-term internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder [51]. It was not possible to perform meta-analyses, as the trials differed in the assessed psychotherapy traditions, and one of them did not report standard deviations [46]. The two remaining trials reported on some of our pre-defined review outcomes.

One trial randomising 224 participants with post-traumatic stress disorder to 6 versus 10 assignments of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy showed no evidence of a difference when assessing quality of life (p = 0.75, required information size not reached) and symptom severity (p = 0.89, required information size not reached) [51]. One trial randomising 138 participants with post-traumatic stress disorder to massed prolonged exposure (10 sessions delivered over 2 weeks) versus standard prolonged exposure (10 sessions delivered over 10 weeks) showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.664; required information size not reached) [49]. One similar trial did not report standard deviations, but the trialists concluded that massed prolonged exposure therapy (10 sessions delivered over 2 weeks) was noninferior to spaced prolonged exposure therapy (10 sessions delivered over 8 weeks) [46]. One trial randomising 61 participants with post-traumatic stress disorder to intensive (5 weeks) versus standard (12 weeks) cognitive therapy [45] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing quality of life (p = 0.061, required information size not reached), symptom severity (p = 0.466, required information size not reached), or level of functioning (p = 0.757, required information size not reached). One trial randomising 40 participants with post-traumatic stress disorder to 60 min versus 90 min sessions of prolonged exposure therapy [47] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.719, required information size not reached) (Table 2, Supplementary material 6). All trials were assessed at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5) and the certainty of evidence was assessed as “very low” for all outcomes (Supplementary materials 14, 15, and 16).

Trials including participants with anxiety disorders

We identified five trials assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders [36,37,38, 42, 48]. One trial did not report the results in a usable way; i.e. the results were reported on a graph and standard deviations were not reported [42].

One trial randomising 29 participants with panic disorder to five versus 12 sessions cognitive behavioral therapy [37] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.615, required information size not reached). One trial randomising 34 participants with social anxiety disorder to 12 versus 18 weeks of cognitive behavioral therapy [36] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.018, required information size not reached), considering our adjusted threshold for significance was pre-defined at 0.014 in our protocol [6]. One trial randomising 81 participants to six versus 12 weeks of cognitive behavioral therapy for participants with panic disorder [48] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.0195, required information size not reached), considering our adjusted threshold for significance was pre-defined at 0.014 in our protocol [6]. One trial randomising 65 participants with panic disorder and agoraphobia to 7 sessions versus 14 sessions cognitive behavioral therapy [38] showed no evidence of a difference when assessing symptom severity (p = 0.77, required information size not reached). All trials were assessed at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5) and the certainty of evidence was assessed as “very low” for all outcomes (Supplementary material 17).

It was only possible to perform two pre-planned meta-analyses: one assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders at end of treatment and at maximum follow-up, and another one assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood and anxiety disorders at end of treatment.

Shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders

We identified five trials assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders [36,37,38, 42, 48]. All trials were assessed as at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 5). One trial was not eligible for meta-analysis, as the results were not reported in a usable way; i.e. the results were reported on a graph and standard deviations were not reported [42].

Four trials randomising a total of 209 participants reported on anxiety symptoms [36,37,38, 48]. Four different symptom scales were used: Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) [37], Social Phobia Anxiety Inventory – Social Phobia [36], State Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait (STAI-T) [48], and Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS) [38]. One trial included participants with social anxiety disorder [36]. Two trials included participants with panic disorder [37, 48]. One trial included participants with panic disorder and agoraphobia [38]. We chose to analyse anxiety symptoms using SMD.

Meta-analysis of anxiety symptoms at end of treatment

Random-effects meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter (5, 6, 7, 12 weeks) and longer-term (12, 12, 14, 18 weeks) cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders (including social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and panic disorder with agoraphobia) on anxiety symptoms at end of treatment (SMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.47 to 0.63; p = 0.77; I2 = 73%; four trials; very low certainty) (Fig. 2). Visual inspection of the forest plot and measures to quantify heterogeneity indicated substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 73%). The end of treatment assessment time point was 12 weeks [37, 48], 15 weeks [38], and 18 weeks [36]. It was not possible to assess the possible impact of missing outcome data, due to unclear or lack of reporting of number of analysed participants in some of the included trials. It was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis for this outcome, because the outcome was assessed using SMD [24]. This outcome result was assessed as at high risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was assessed as ‘very low’. See Supplementary material 17. The fixed-effect meta-analysis showed similar results (SMD 0.16; 95% CI: -0.11, 0.44; p = 0.25; I2 = 73%; four trials; very low certainty) Supplementary material 18.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of shorter- versus longer-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety disorders on severity of anxiety symptoms at end of treatment

Full size image

Shorter- versus longer-term psychodynamic therapy for mood and anxiety disorders

We identified two trials assessing the effects of shorter- versus longer-term psychodynamic therapy for mood- and anxiety disorder [34, 35, 54]. Both trials were assessed as at high risk of bias (Supplementary material 4).

Two trials randomising a total of 393 participants reported on level of functioning [34, 35]. Two different assessment scales were used, including Global Assessment of Functioning – Function (GAF-F) [35] and the work subscale (SAS-Work) of the Social Adjustment Scale [34]. We chose to analyze level of functioning using standardised mean difference. In order to assure the scales pointed in the right direction, we multiplied the mean in one of the trials with ‘-1’.

Meta-analysis of level of functioning at end of treatment

Random effects meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- (20 and 20 weeks) and longer-term (80 and 156 weeks) psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood and anxiety disorders on level of functioning at end of treatment (SMD 0.16; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.40; p = 0.20; I2 = 21%; two trials; very low certainty) (Fig. 3). Visual inspection of forest plot and measures to quantify heterogeneity (I2 = 21%) showed some heterogeneity. The end of treatment time point of assessment was 36 months after randomisation for both trials. It was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis for this outcome, because the outcome was assessed using SMD [24]. This outcome result was assessed as at high risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was assessed as ‘very low’. See Supplementary material 8. The fixed-effect meta-analysis showed similar results (SMD 0.16; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.37; p = 0.14; I2 = 21%; two trials; very low certainty) Supplementary material 19.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of shorter- versus longer-term psychodynamic therapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning at end of treatment

Full size image

Incomplete outcome data

Random effects meta-analysis of the best–worst case scenario adding 2 SD (SMD -0.16; 95% CI -8.13 to 7.81; p =  < 0.00001; I2 = 95%) and adding 1 SD (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -4.26 to 3.95; p =  < 0.94; I2 = 100%) for missing data showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. Random effects meta-analysis of the worst-best case scenario adding 2 SD (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -7.62 to 7.35; p =  < 0.97; I2 = 100%) and adding 1 SD (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -3.76 to 3.48; p =  < 0.94; I2 = 100%) for missing values showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- and longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy.

Because of lack of relevant data, it was not possible to conduct other pre-defined meta-analyses. It was only possible to perform one sensitivity analysis (best–worst worst-best scenarios) to assess the potential impact of incomplete outcome data. We also planned several subgroup analyses to test for heterogeneity [6], but it was not possible to conduct them because of lack of relevant data. Further, it was not possible to assess the risk of publication bias by testing for funnel plot asymmetry due to lack of trials. Last, it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analyses because all included outcomes were assessed using SMD.

The possible contribution of ongoing trials

We identified two ongoing trials [55, 56] that might contribute to the current evidence on shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders. These ongoing trials will contribute to the evidence on quality of life, serious adverse events, symptom severity, suicide and suicide attempts, self-harm, and level of functioning.

Discussion

We conducted the first systematic review assessing the difference between shorter- and longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders. We included 19 trials randomising a total of 3,447 participants to a shorter or a longer-term version of the same psychotherapy type. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE was `very low' for all outcomes.

One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- versus longer-term dialectical behavioral therapy for borderline personality disorder and reached the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects when assessing quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning [53] (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished). One single trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of adding booster sessions to 8 and 12 weeks of internet-based cognitive-behavioral therapy when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning and reached the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects [50]. One single trial showed no evidence of a difference between shorter- versus longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- or anxiety disorders and reached the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning [34]. The remaining single trials did not meet the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. It was only possible to perform two pre-planned meta-analyses. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between short-term and long-term cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety symptoms at end of treatment or at maximum follow-up. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between short-term and long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy on level of functioning at end of treatment. All trials and outcomes were assessed as at high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was assessed as ‘very low’ for all outcomes. It was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis or tests for publication bias. Further, due to poor reporting in the included trials, we only performed one planned sensitivity analysis to assess the potential impact of missing data. Only one trial reported on serious adverse events (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished). Two trials reported on suicide and suicide attempts [35] (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished), and one trial reported on self-harm (McMain S: The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial, Unpublished).

Our review has several strengths. We followed our protocol which was registered prior to the systematic literature search (PROSPERO ID: CRD42019128535). Data were double-extracted by independent authors minimizing the risk of inaccurate data extraction, and we assessed the risk of bias in all trials according to Cochrane methodology [14]. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence [31,32,33], and the eight-step assessment suggested by Jakobsen et al. to assess if the thresholds for significance were crossed [17]. Hence, this systematic review considered both risks of random errors and risks of systematic errors which adds further robustness to our results and conclusions. Another strength of our review is that we pragmatically accepted any short-term psychotherapy type and any long-term psychotherapy type, thus results may therefore guide a clinician when choosing between different treatment durations.

Our review also has several limitations. First, due to large heterogeneity in participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes, we decided to primarily report the results narratively and only perform two small pre-planned meta-analyses. The observed heterogeneity is due to our pre-defined broad inclusion criteria, i.e. we used the trialists’ own definitions of short-term and long-term psychotherapy. However, we believe that this choice of methodology from a pragmatic point of view is the best solution there is, as introducing specific thresholds may have excluded important data from our review [6]. If we had used a specific threshold distinguishing short-term from long-term psychotherapy, e.g. by applying a definition of short-term psychotherapy as including up to 24 sessions and long-term psychotherapy as including at least 50 sessions or having a duration of at least one year as suggested by others [57, 58], we would have only been able to include three trials in the review, and the aim of presenting a complete overview would not be possible. Second, all trials were at high risk of bias. Therefore, there is a risk that our results overestimated the beneficial effects and underestimated the harmful effects of the experimental interventions being studied [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. Third, we only identified 19 trials, and it was not possible to assess the risk of random errors in the meta-analyses with Trial Sequential Analysis due to the inclusion of continuous outcomes assessed with heterogeneous measures (i.e. we assessed the effects with standardised mean difference). This is a major limitation, as we cannot assess if the shown lack of difference is an indication of a “true” lack of difference, or if it is an indication that more trials are needed. We calculated the required information sizes for single trial results post-hoc, but these should primarily be considered exploratory, as they rely on the observed means and standard deviations instead of pre-defined minimal clinically important differences on the assessed scales. Fourth, only few trials reported on serious adverse events, suicide, suicide attempts, and self-harm. It is of utmost importance to always assess beneficial and harmful intervention effects on patient-important outcomes [14, 67].

We have identified one previous systematic review comparing short-term and long-term psychotherapy for schizophrenia [68]. However, the review did not identify any trials. We have also identified a meta-regression study investigating the effects of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder [5]. This study found no significant association between the duration of psychotherapy and effect-size, which is similar to the conclusion of the present review. However, in the meta-regression study, there was a strong association between number of sessions per week and effect size. An increase from one to two sessions per week increased the effect size with g = 0.45, while keeping the total number of treatment sessions constant [5]. The results of the present review could neither confirm nor reject that two sessions per week were more efficacious than one session per week.

The included trials in this review typically assessed the effects of different durations of psychotherapy for anxiety disorders, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Our findings indicate that there may be no evidence of a difference between short-term and long-term psychotherapy when assessing symptom severity and level of functioning. There are, however, indications from non-controlled studies that patients with complex and severe psychopathology, defined by the presence of, e.g., co-occurring mental health disorders, longer duration and early onset of the disorder, and unemployment, may have better outcomes in high-intensity than in low-intensity treatments [69, 70]. We included one trial including participants with borderline personality disorder. This trial did not find evidence of a difference between six versus 12 months dialectical behavioral therapy, and the trial reached the required information size needed to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects for quality of life, symptom severity, and level of functioning. However, the trial was assessed as at high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was “very low” for all outcomes. Accordingly, future randomised clinical trials comparing the outcomes of short- and long-term psychotherapy for patients with low and high problem complexity should be conducted. We are currently performing a similar randomised clinical trial assessing the effects of five months versus 14 months of mentalization-based therapy for borderline personality disorder [55, 71]. We are planning a protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis of shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder, which will be conducted once data from the two trials become available. Results of the individual patient data meta-analysis will increase the possibility of identifying subgroups of participants with specific effects of the assessed interventions. We identified no trials including participants with other severe personality pathology, schizophrenia, or other psychotic disorders. Hence, it is still unclear whether patients with severe psychopathology requires short-term or long-term psychotherapy.

Evidence-based practice and decision-making should be based on the best available evidence, patient preferences, and the clinician’s expertise [72]. For severe and complex cases there is evidence of beneficial effects of psychotherapy of specific treatment lengths (e.g. long-term specialized treatment for borderline personality disorder [73]) but very low certainty evidence to guide clinicians in choosing the optimal treatment duration. Evidently, clinicians should by default offer psychotherapy in a duration supported by the best available evidence. But when there is a question of treatment duration, e.g. a patient asking for a shorter treatment because of life circumstances, the clinician is advised to balance this preference with clinical experience which may include knowledge of specific prognostic factors such as early onset or co-occurring disorders, while also considering the poor evidence regarding the optimal treatment duration currently available.

Conclusions

The evidence for shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders is currently unclear. We only identified 19 randomised clinical trials. More trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors assessing participants at different levels of psychopathological severity are urgently needed.

Differences between the protocol and the review

In addition to assessing all outcomes at end of treatment, we planned to assess all outcomes at maximum follow-up as a secondary analysis. However, only few trials reported data at maximum follow-up. Because of lack of relevant data, we chose to only report data at end of treatment.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its supplementary information files).

Abbreviations

CENTRAL:

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CI:

Confidence Interval

CPCI-S:

Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Science

CPCI-SSH:

Conference Proceedings Citation Index—Social Science & Humanities

DARIS:

Diversity Adjusted Required Information Size

EMBASE:

Excerpta Medica database

GRADE:

Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation

LILACS:

Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature

MEDLINE:

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online

MD:

Mean Difference

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

ROB:

Risk of Bias

RR:

Risk Ratio

SCI-EXPANDED:

Science Citation Index Expanded

SD:

Standard Deviation

SMD:

Standardised Mean Difference

SSCI:

Social Sciences Citation Index

TSA:

Trial Sequential Analysis

References

  1. Wittchen HU, Jacobi F, Rehm J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M, Jonsson B, et al. The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2011;21(9):655–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olesen J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M, Wittchen HU, Jonsson B, group Cs, et al. The economic cost of brain disorders in Europe. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(1):155–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wittchen HU, Jacobi F. Size and burden of mental disorders in Europe-a critical review and appraisal of 27 studies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2005;15(4):357–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barlow DH. The Oxford Handbook of Clinical Psychology: Updated Edition. Oxford Library of Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014.

  5. Cuijpers P, Huibers M, Ebert DD, Koole SL, Andersson G. How much psychotherapy is needed to treat depression? A metaregression analysis. J Affect Disord. 2013;149(1–3):1–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Juul S, Poulsen S, Lunn S, Sorensen P, Jakobsen JC, Simonsen S. Short-term versus long-term psychotherapy for adult psychiatric disorders: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):169.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Castonguay LG, Barkham M, Lutz W, McAleavey A. Practice-oriented research: Approaches and applications. In: Lambert MJ, editors. Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. 6th edition. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013. p. 85-133.

  8. Howard KI, Kopta SM, Krause MS, Orlinsky DE. The Dose-Effect Relationship in Psychotherapy. Am Psychol. 1986;41(2):159–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Robinson L, Delgadillo J, Kellett S. The dose-response effect in routinely delivered psychological therapies: A systematic review. Psychother Res. 2020;30(1):79–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bone C, Delgadillo J, Barkham M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the good-enough level (GEL) literature. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2021;68(2):219.

  11. Jakobsen JC, Gluud C. The necessity of randomized clinical trials. Br J Med Med Res. 2013;3(4):1453–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii–x, 1–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Welch V. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5.1). The Cochrane Collaboration. Wiley. 2011. Available at: https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.

  15. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use). ICH Harmonised Guideline: Integrated Addemdum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP). 2015. Available at: https://ichgcp.net/da. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.

  16. Keus F, Wetterslev J, Gluud C, van Laarhoven CJ. Evidence at a glance: error matrix approach for overviewing available evidence. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10(1):90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Winkel P, Lange T, Gluud C. Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2019. Available at: http://www.stata.com. Accessed May 26 2023.

  19. The Cochrane Collaboration. Review manager (Version 5.4) [Computer Software]. The Nordic Cochrane Centre; 2020. Available at: https://revman.cochrane.org. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.

  20. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(1):64–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Copenhagen Trial Unit. TSA - Trial Sequential Analysis. [Computer Software] Available at: http://www.ctu.dk/tsa. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.

  22. Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):763–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive—trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2008;38(1):287–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). 2011. Available at: https://ctu.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2017-10-10-TSA-Manual-ENG_ER.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.

  25. Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E. Interpreting meta-analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV-infected individuals. Clin Epidemiol. 2010;2:57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Thorlund K, Devereaux P, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? Int J Epidemiol. 2008;38(1):276–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Imberger G, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(8):e011890.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jakobsen JC, Wetterslev J, Lange T, Gluud C. Viewpoint: taking into account risks of random errors when analysing multiple outcomes in systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2016(3)ED000111. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000111.

  31. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):380–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schünemann HJ, Best D, Vist G, Oxman AD, Group GW. Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations. CMAJ. 2003;169(7):677–80.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Knekt P, Lindfors O, Harkanen T, Valikoski M, Virtala E, Laaksonen MA, et al. Randomized trial on the effectiveness of long-and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and solution-focused therapy on psychiatric symptoms during a 3-year follow-up. Psychol Med. 2008;38(5):689–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lorentzen S, Ruud T, Fjeldstad A, Hoglend P. Comparison of short- and long-term dynamic group psychotherapy: randomised clinical trial. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;203(3):280–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Herbert JD, Rheingold AA, Gaudiano BA, Myers VH. Standard Versus Extended Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder: A Randomized-Controlled Trial. Behav Cognitive Psychother. 2004;32(2):131–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Clark DM, Salkovskis PM, Hackmann A, Wells A, Ludgate J, Gelder M. Brief Cognitive Therapy for Panic Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67(4):583–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Roberge P, Marchand A, Reinharz D, Savard P. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Panic Disorder With Agoraphobia A Randomized, Controlled Trial and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. J Behavior Mod. 2008;32(3):333–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bruijniks SJE, Lemmens L, Hollon SD, Peeters F, Cuijpers P, Arntz A, et al. The effects of once- versus twice-weekly sessions on psychotherapy outcomes in depressed patients. Br J Psychiatry. 2020;216(4):222–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Barkham M, Rees A, Shapiro DA, Stiles WB, Agnew RM, Halstead J, et al. Outcomes of time-limited psychotherapy in applied settings: replicating the Second Sheffield Psychotherapy Project. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(5):1079.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shapiro DA, Barkham M, Rees A, Hardy GE, Reynolds S, Startup M. Effects of treatment duration and severity of depression on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62(3):522.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bohni M, Spindler H, Arendt M, Hougaard E, Rosenberg N. A randomized study of massed three-week cognitive behavioural therapy schedule for panic disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009;120(3):187–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Christensen H, Griffiths K, Mackinnon A, Brittliffe K. Online randomized controlled trial of brief and full cognitive behaviour therapy for depression. Psychol Med. 2006;36(12):1737.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dekker J, Molenaar PJ, Kool S, Van Aalst G, Peen J, de Jonghe F. Dose–effect relations in time-limited combined psycho-pharmacological treatment for depression. Psychol Med. 2005;35(1):47–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ehlers A, Hackmann A, Grey N, Wild J, Liness S, Albert I, et al. A randomized controlled trial of 7-day intensive and standard weekly cognitive therapy for PTSD and emotion-focused supportive therapy. Am J Psychiatry. 2014;171(3):294–304.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Foa EB, McLean CP, Zang Y, Rosenfield D, Yadin E, Yarvis JS, et al. Effect of prolonged exposure therapy delivered over 2 weeks vs 8 weeks vs present-centered therapy on PTSD symptom severity in military personnel: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(4):354–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Nacasch N, Huppert JD, Su Y-J, Kivity Y, Dinshtein Y, Yeh R, et al. Are 60-Minute Prolonged Exposure Sessions With 20-Minute Imaginal Exposure to Traumatic Memories Sufficient to Successfully Treat PTSD? A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial. Behav Ther. 2015;46(3):328–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kenardy JA, Dow MG, Johnston DW, Newman MG, Thomson A, Taylor CB. A comparison of delivery methods of cognitive-behavioral therapy for panic disorder: an international multicenter trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71(6):1068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dell L, Sbisa AM, Forbes A, O'Donnell M, Bryant R, Hodson S, et al. Effect of massed v. standard prolonged exposure therapy on PTSD in military personnel and veterans: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Psychol Med. 2022:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722000927.

  50. Hadjistavropoulos H, Peynenburg V, Thiessen D, Nugent M, Karin E, Dear B, et al. A randomized factorial trial of internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy: An 8-week program with or without extended support and booster lesson. Internet Int. 2022;27:100499.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Böttche M, Wagner B, Vöhringer M, Heinrich M, Stein J, Selmo P, et al. Is only one cognitive technique also effective? Results from a randomized controlled trial of two different versions of an internet-based cognitive behavioural intervention for post-traumatic stress disorder in Arabic-speaking countries. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021;12(1):1943870.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. McMain SF, Chapman AL, Kuo JR, Dixon-Gordon KL, Guimond TH, Labrish C, et al. The effectiveness of 6 versus 12 months of dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder: a noninferiority randomized clinical trial. Psychother Psychosom. 2022;91(6):382-97.

  53. McMain SF, Chapman AL, Kuo JR, Guimond T, Streiner DL, Dixon-Gordon KL, et al. The effectiveness of 6 versus 12-months of dialectical behaviour therapy for borderline personality disorder: the feasibility of a shorter treatment and evaluating responses (FASTER) trial protocol. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Knekt P, Lindfors O, Laaksonen MA, Raitasalo R, Haaramo P, Jarvikoski A, et al. Effectiveness of short-term and long-term psychotherapy on work ability and functional capacity–a randomized clinical trial on depressive and anxiety disorders. J Affect Disord. 2008;107(1–3):95–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Juul S, Lunn S, Poulsen S, Sorensen P, Salimi M, Jakobsen JC, et al. Short-term versus long-term mentalization-based therapy for outpatients with subthreshold or diagnosed borderline personality disorder: a protocol for a randomized clinical trial. Trials. 2019;20(1):196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kool M, Van HL, Bartak A, de Maat SCM, Arntz A, van den Eshof JW, et al. Optimizing psychotherapy dosage for comorbid depression and personality disorders (PsyDos): a pragmatic randomized factorial trial using schema therapy and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):252.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gabbard, G. Long-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: A Basic Text. Arlington: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Crits-Christoph P, Barber JP. Long-term psychotherapy. In: Ingram RE, Snyder CR, editors. Handbook of Psychological Change: Psychotherapy Processes & Practices for the 21st Century. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2000. p. 455–73.

  59. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(6):493–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Moher D, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hrobjartsson A, Emanuelsson F, Skou Thomsen AS, Hilden J, Brorson S. Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(4):1272–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Hrobjartsson A, Skou Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors. CMAJ. 2013;185(4):E201-11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Hrobjartsson A, Thomsen AS, Emanuelsson F, Tendal B, Hilden J, Boutron I, et al. Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ. 2012;344:e1119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Welch V. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 6.3). The Cochrane Collaboration. Wiley; 2019. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed 2 Mar 2023.

  68. Naeem F, Farooq S, Kingdon D. Cognitive behavioural therapy (brief versus standard duration) for schizophrenia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;10:CD010646.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Delgadillo J, Moreea O, Lutz W. Different people respond differently to therapy: A demonstration using patient profiling and risk stratification. Behav Res Ther. 2016;79:15–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Delgadillo J, Huey D, Bennett H, McMillan D. Case complexity as a guide for psychological treatment selection. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017;85(9):835.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Juul S, Simonsen S, Poulsen S, Lunn S, Sørensen P, Bateman A, et al. Detailed statistical analysis plan for the short-term versus long-term mentalization-based therapy for outpatients with subthreshold or diagnosed borderline personality disorder randomized clinical trial (MBT-RCT). Trials. 2020;22:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;321:71–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Storebø OJ, Stoffers-Winterling JM, Völlm BA, Kongerslev MT, Mattivi JT, Jørgensen MS, et al. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020(5). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012955.pub2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The expert help from Sarah Louise Klingenberg (Information Specialist, The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Copenhagen, Denmark) in making the search strategy and conducting electronic searches is hugely appreciated.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Royal Danish Library. This work was funded by Trygfonden (SJ, grant number: 123488), and by the Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark Research Fund (SJ and SS, grant number: N/A).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stolpegaard Psychotherapy Centre, Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark, Gentofte, Denmark

    Sophie Juul, Per Sørensen & Sebastian Simonsen

  2. Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen University Hospital – Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Sophie Juul, Janus Christian Jakobsen & Caroline Kamp Jørgensen

  3. Department of Regional Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

    Janus Christian Jakobsen & Caroline Kamp Jørgensen

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Stig Poulsen

Authors
  1. Sophie Juul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janus Christian Jakobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caroline Kamp Jørgensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stig Poulsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Per Sørensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sebastian Simonsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SJ and CKJ independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessments with ongoing supervision from JCJ and SS. SJ conducted data analyses and wrote up the manuscript draft. All authors read, commented on, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sophie Juul.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approvement and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

PRISMA 2020 Checklist for “Short-term versus long-term psychotherapy for adult psychiatric disorders: A systematic review with meta-analysis”

Additional file 2.

 

Additional file 3.

 

Additional file 4.

 

Additional file 5:

Supplementary material 5. Risk of bias table.

Additional file 6.

 

Additional file 7.

 

Additional file 8.

 

Additional file 9.

 

Additional file 10.

 

Additional file 11.

 

Additional file 12.

 

Additional file 13.

 

Additional file 14.

 

Additional file 15.

 

Additional file 16.

 

Additional file 17.

 

Additional file 18:

Supplementary material 18. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of short-term versus long-term cognitivebehavioral therapy for anxiety disorders on anxiety symptoms (sensitivity analysis).

Additional file 19:

Supplementary material 19. Fixed-effect meta-analysis of short-term versus long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for mood- and anxiety disorders on level of functioning (sensitivity analysis).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Juul, S., Jakobsen, J.C., Jørgensen, C.K. et al. The difference between shorter- versus longer-term psychotherapy for adult mental health disorders: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry 23, 438 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04895-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-04895-6

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us