Abstract
In their meta-analysis, Mehl et al. (2015) examine whether CBT for psychosis is an effective intervention for reducing delusions. The authors reported a small but significant effect size for CBT in comparison to TAU at end-of-therapy (k = 13; d = 0.27) and at follow-up (k = 12; d = 0.25). By contrast, no significant benefit emerged for CBT when compared to active control conditions either at end-of-therapy (k = 8; d = 0.16) or at follow-up (k = 5; d = −0.04). The meta-analysis, however, contains errors and omissions that when rectified, cast doubt on the reliability of the reported significant effects comparing CBT to Treatment as Usual (TAU) at end-of treatment and at follow-up.
Highlights
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Psychopathology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
In their meta-analysis, Mehl et al (2015) examine whether CBT for psychosis is an effective intervention for reducing delusions
No significant benefit emerged for CBT when compared to active control conditions either at end-of-therapy (k = 8; d = 0.16) or at follow-up (k = 5; d = −0.04)
Summary
Specialty section: This article was submitted to Psychopathology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology. Reviewed by: Maria Semkovska, University of Limerick, Ireland In their meta-analysis, Mehl et al (2015) examine whether CBT for psychosis is an effective intervention for reducing delusions.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call