Cited by 3Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

Collaborative assessment as an intervention in the treatment of mental Illness: a systematic review

Hovmand, Oliver Rumle, Rejaye Gryesten, Jasmin, Storebø, Ole Jakob, Reinholt, Nina, Arnfred, Sidse M.·2024·Nordic Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Three meta-analyses suggested that the psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention approach might have therapeutic effects but had unspecific inclusion criteria. METHODS: We searched four databases for RCTs that reported on the use of psychological assessment as an intervention. Two reviewers independently selected papers, extracted data, and assessed study quality.We conducted and reported the systematic review following the PRISMA statement. We assessed the Risk of bias in included studies using the Risk of Bias tool and graded the strength of the evidence with GRADE. RESULTS: = 7) no difference in borderline symptomatology but a possible difference regarding suicidality favoring MACT + TA. The trial did not provide any outcomes relating to readiness for treatment. The other trial investigated TA compared with a Goal-focused Pretreatment Intervention in a sample of 74 outpatients with personality disorders. The results found no intervention effects on symptomatology but suggested that TA might improve patient expectancy for future treatment among completers of the intervention. Both trials were judged at a high risk of bias and with very low certainty of evidence. DISCUSSION: We found no support for the clinical effect of psychological assessment as a therapeutic intervention due to the high risk of bias and low certainty of the evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08039488.2024.2357565

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hovmand, O. R., Rejaye Gryesten, J., Storebø, O. J., Reinholt, N., & Arnfred, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Psychiatric Research Unit, Region Zealand Mental Health Services, Slagelse, Denmark
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Region Zealand (DK)
Corresponding author
Hovmand, Oliver Rumle
Venue
Nordic Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2024-07
Volume
78
Issue
6
Pages
457-464
ISSN
  • 0029-1455 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-9488
  • 1502-4725
OpenAlex
W4400205885
Cited by
3
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nordic Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Region Zealand Mental Health Service and Trygfonden (152461)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
psychiatric treatment, treatment alliance, borderline personality disorder, suicidality, personality disorders, treatment expectancy, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Personality Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review