Full access
New Research
Published Online: 1 October 2014

Long-Term Outcome of Psychodynamic Therapy and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Social Anxiety Disorder

Falk Leichsenring, D.Sc., Simone Salzer, D.Sc., Manfred E. Beutel, M.D., Stephan Herpertz, M.D., Wolfgang Hiller, Ph.D., Juergen Hoyer, Ph.D., Johannes Huesing, Dr.Rer.Medic., … Show All … , Peter Joraschky, M.D., Bjoern Nolting, M.D., Karin Poehlmann, Ph.D., Viktoria Ritter, D.Phil.Nat., Ulrich Stangier, D.Sc., Bernhard Strauss, Ph.D., Susan Tefikow, Ph.D., Tobias Teismann, Ph.D., Ulrike Willutzki, Ph.D, Joerg Wiltink, M.D., and Eric Leibing, D.Sc.Authors Info & Affiliations
Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Volume 171, Number 10
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111514
Track CitationsAdd to favorites
PDF/EPUB

Abstract

No long-term differences were found between CBT and psychodynamic therapy in treating social anxiety disorder, and both treatments were superior to no treatment, but CBT was slightly favored for self-reported symptoms and interpersonal problems in the short term.

Abstract

Objective

Relatively few studies have examined the long-term outcome of psychotherapy in social anxiety disorder. The authors previously reported findings of a clinical trial comparing cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), psychodynamic therapy, and a wait-list control. The purpose of the present study was to follow the participants’ status over the ensuing 24 months.

Method

Outpatients with social anxiety disorder who were treated with CBT (N=209) or psychodynamic therapy (N=207) in the previous trial were assessed 6, 12, and 24 months after the end of therapy. Primary outcome measures were rates of remission and response.

Results

For both CBT and psychodynamic therapy, response rates were approximately 70% by the 2-year follow-up. Remission rates were nearly 40% for both treatment conditions. Rates of response and remission were stable or tended to increase for both treatments over the 24-month follow-up period, and no significant differences were found between the treatment conditions after 6 months.

Conclusions

CBT and psychodynamic therapy were efficacious in treating social anxiety disorder, in both the short- and long-term, when patients showed continuous improvement. Although in the short-term, intention-to-treat analyses yielded some statistically significant but small differences in favor of CBT in several outcome measures, no differences in outcome were found in the long-term.
Social anxiety disorder is one of the most prevalent mental disorders, with a lifetime prevalence of 12% and a 12-month prevalence of 7% (1). The disorder has an early onset and a chronic course and can result in severe psychosocial impairments and high socioeconomic costs (2, 3). Social anxiety disorder has secondary effects on other mental disorders (e.g., depression), social role functioning, and help-seeking (3). There is evidence from a large body of studies that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is beneficial for patients with social anxiety disorder (4, 5). Furthermore, a recent large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trial provided evidence that psychodynamic therapy is efficacious in the treatment of social anxiety disorder as well (6). However, the majority of studies of psychotherapy in social anxiety disorder have assessed only short-term outcome. For example, of the 29 randomized controlled trials examined in the most recent meta-analysis on social anxiety disorder, conducted by Acarturk et al. (5), only seven studies (24%) included follow-up periods longer than 6 months, with only two studies including follow-up periods longer than 12 months (7, 8). The longest follow-up period applied was 18 months (7).
The Social Phobia Psychotherapy Network was established in order to address some of these limitations (9). The Social Phobia Psychotherapy Network encompasses several interrelated studies of different aspects of social anxiety disorder, including psychotherapy, genetics, neural deviations, and health economics (9). The Social Phobia Psychotherapy Network Study A1 is a large, multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing CBT and psychodynamic therapy in the treatment of social anxiety disorder. Recently, we reported results for short-term outcome (6). In our previous study, both CBT and psychodynamic therapy proved to be superior to a wait-list control with regard to remission and response. There were statistically significant differences in favor of CBT with regard to remission but not response. Between-group effect sizes for remission (Cohen’s h=0.22) and response (Cohen’s h=0.16) were small and below the a priori-defined threshold of clinical significance (Cohen’s h=0.30) (6). Secondary outcomes showed significant differences in favor of CBT with regard to measures of social phobia and interpersonal problems but not depression. Again, all differences in terms of between-group effect sizes were small (Cohen’s h=0.18–0.33) (6).
In order to examine the long-term effects of the treatments, additional follow-up assessments were carried out at 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. These results are reported in the present study.

Method

Study Design and Implementation

The aim of this study was to examine the long-term effects of both CBT and psychodynamic therapy. Patients were recruited from April 11, 2007 to April 29, 2009 by the outpatient clinics of the universities of Bochum, Dresden, Göttingen, Jena, and Mainz (in Germany) (6). One clinic at each of these five centers performed CBT, and another performed psychodynamic therapy. An investigator allegiance effect was controlled for by including experts of both CBT and psychodynamic therapy as local investigators at each center (see the Appendix in the data supplement accompanying the online version of this article) (6). The study protocol was approved by the responsible ethics committee and conducted in accordance with the guidelines for good clinical practice (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/). The study was monitored by the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials at Heidelberg (http://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/KKS-Heidelberg.2411.0.html), which is independent of the participating research centers (6, p. 760).

Study Participants

As described in our previous study, the following inclusion criteria were applied (6, p. 760): age range of 18–70 years; a diagnosis of social anxiety disorder according to the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I and II Disorders (SCID-I and II) (10); a Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale score >30 (11); and a primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder according to the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule (12). Exclusion criteria were psychotic and acute substance-related disorders; cluster A and B personality disorders; prominent risk of self-harm; organic mental disorders; severe medical conditions; and concurrent psychotherapeutic or psychopharmacological treatment. Participants were required to provide informed consent before inclusion in the study.

Treatments

The treatments used have been described previously (6). The method of CBT applied was based on the model by Clark and Wells (13). We used the German manual by Stangier et al. (14) (also see reference 15). The method for psychodynamic therapy was based on Luborsky’s model (16), which was specifically adapted to treat social anxiety disorder (17).
In both CBT and psychodynamic therapy, up to 25 individual (50-minute) treatment sessions were applied. Additionally, up to five preparatory sessions were conducted, which are required in the German health care system. The mean (standard deviation) number of sessions completed was 25.84 (SD=9.13) for CBT and 25.67 (SD=9.61) for psychodynamic therapy (6). The mean duration of treatment was 38.69 weeks (SD=16.03) for CBT and 37.40 weeks (SD=18.03) for psychodynamic therapy (6, 18).

Therapists

All therapists had completed their psychotherapeutic training or were receiving advanced psychotherapeutic training. Fifty-five cognitive-behavioral therapists conducted CBT (female, N=37), and 53 psychodynamic therapists conducted psychodynamic therapy (female, N=30). None of the therapists conducted both CBT and psychodynamic therapy. Therapists were specifically trained and closely supervised, and treatment fidelity was ensured (6). Differences between cognitive and psychodynamic therapists with regard to general clinical experience, experience in manualized therapy, and experience with the specific treatment manual were statistically controlled for and did not affect treatment outcome (6).

Assessment and Masking

Assessments were conducted at baseline, at weeks 8 and 15 of treatment, and posttreatment and again at 6, 12, and 24 months after the end of treatment (6, p. 761). Diagnoses were made using SCID I and II (10). The primary (i.e., most severe) mental disorder was assessed using the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule. Twenty-three specifically trained and independent assessors (clinical psychologists) masked to the treatment conditions conducted the interviews. High interrater reliability was shown for the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total score, which was used to assess the primary outcomes, defined by rates of remission and response (6). Following recommendations by Liebowitz et al., remission was defined as a score ≤30 (11, 19). Response was defined by a 31% reduction (or more) in the total score on this scale, which has been shown to be comparable to a global improvement rating ≤2 on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale usually used to define response (20). The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (21–23) are well-established self-report instruments applied as secondary outcome measures.

Randomization

Randomization was carried out according to randomization lists that were computer generated by and kept at the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials Heidelberg, which served as a central randomization unit disclosing the allocation after each patient was registered in the study (6).

Statistical Analyses

Procedures for statistical analysis and power analysis were described in our previous study (6, p. 761). We expected the difference in response rates for CBT compared with psychodynamic therapy to be 70% compared with 55%. A difference of 15% corresponds to an effect size of 0.30 (24), which we defined a priori as clinically meaningful. Our study was designed to detect a difference of 15% (Cohen’s h=0.30), with a power of 0.80. We determined that at least 174 patients were required in each active treatment arm when using two-tailed tests with an alpha set at 0.05 (25). The data were analyzed using SAS 9.3 software (SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.). For the analysis of response and remission during the follow-up periods, mixed-effects logistic regression models from posttreatment over 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months were used. Specifically, a multilevel mixed regression model, with therapist and patient as nested random effects and with site, baseline Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale score, time point, and treatment condition as fixed effects, was fitted to the dichotomous measures of response and remission. Linear contrasts were estimated for changes in scores over time within each treatment condition and for treatment effects at single time points. Contrasts were transformed to odds ratios for reporting. For secondary measures, mixed-effects linear models were applied with the same covariates used for the response and remission models, except for the baseline scores on the scales in lieu of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale.
In order to analyze remission and response at any point in time, an alpha set at 0.05 was adopted (6, p. 761). For comparison of CBT and psychodynamic therapy with regard to the secondary (dimensional) outcome measures, the alpha value was adjusted for multiple comparisons (α=0.01, 0.05/4). For categorical data, between-group differences were assessed using Cohen’s h; for dimensional data, Cohen’s d was used, with the d value based on mixed-model analysis adjusted means (24). For intention-to-treat analysis, we applied multiple imputation by chained equations to account for the uncertainty resulting from missing outcomes (26, 27). Multiple imputation is superior to the last-observation-carried-forward procedure for several reasons. First, multiple imputation adequately incorporates the uncertainty arising from missing data and introduces additional variance, leading to larger standard errors. Furthermore, under the assumption of missing at random, multiple imputation yields unbiased and more accurate results than the last-observation-carried-forward procedure (28). To generate conservative estimates, 50 imputations were created, and all available variables were included in the imputation process. For the present study, data for the follow-up assessments were included in the multiple imputation process. This may have led to minor deviations in the present results, when compared with those of our previous analysis, which included only baseline and posttherapy data (6). Additionally, analysis of patients who completed the study per protocol was performed. The per-protocol analysis included patients who participated in both the treatment and the study assessments in accordance with the study protocol.

Results

Patient Flow

Baseline demographic characteristics of the study participants by study center are summarized in Table 1. As reported in our previous study, 495 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and did not meet any exclusion criterion (Figure 1) (6). Initially, 209, 207, and 79 patients were randomly assigned to CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or a waiting list, respectively. Posttherapy and at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up assessments, 159, 142, 127, and 91 patients, respectively, completed the study in the CBT condition per protocol, and 149, 130, 108, and 68 patients, respectively, did so in the psychodynamic condition (Figure 1). According to the intention-to-treat principle, outcome data pertaining to individuals who dropped out of the study were estimated by multiple imputation using the same procedures that were used for the short-term outcome (6). In order to be able to attribute the observed effects to the applied treatments of CBT or psychodynamic therapy, patients who received intercurrent treatments during the follow-up period were considered to have dropped out, which is consistent with the study protocol. Data for other patients who dropped out were estimated by multiple imputation.
TABLE 1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder and Recruitment According to Study Center
Study Center and CharacteristicCognitive-Behavioral Therapy Group (N=209)Psychodynamic Therapy Group (N=207)All Participants (N=495)a
 N%N%N%
University of Bochum4450.02933.08817.8
University of Göttingen3743.03338.48617.4
University of Dresden4541.34642.210922.0
University of Jena4036.75247.710922.0
University of Mainz4341.84745.610320.8
 MeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Age (years)34.8512.0334.3712.1235.2312.18
Female sex11354.111153.727054.6
a
Seventy-nine participants were randomly assigned to a waiting list.
FIGURE 1. Enrollment and Study Flow of Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder Randomly Assigned to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Psychodynamic Therapy, or a Waiting Lista
a Some patients who were not available for a scheduled examination may have taken part in a later examination; therefore, the frequencies of (terminal) withdrawals may deviate from the difference between the available patients on two consecutive assessments.

Intercurrent treatments.

Of the 233 patients for whom 6-month data were available, 11% (15/141) in the CBT group and 17% (22/129) in the psychodynamic therapy group received psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy. This was also true for 7% (8/113) of patients receiving CBT and 11% (9/85) of patients receiving psychodynamic therapy during the 12-month follow-up assessment period, as well as for 10% (8/77) of CBT patients and 13% (6/45) of psychodynamic therapy patients during the 24-month follow-up period. Thirty-two patients (16 patients in both treatment conditions) were treated with antidepressive or anxiolytic pharmacotherapy during the follow-up period, with no differences between treatments. Twenty-two of the CBT patients and 39 of the psychodynamic therapy patients received psychotherapy during the follow-up period.

Outcome

The key outcome data for CBT and psychodynamic therapy are presented in Table 2. Response rates for the CBT group immediately after the end of treatment and 6, 12, and 24 months after therapy were 63%, 72%, 70%, and 69%, respectively (Figure 2). For the psychodynamic therapy group, the response rates immediately after the end of treatment and 6, 12, and 24 months after therapy were 58%, 65%, 64%, and 69%, respectively (Figure 2). Remission rates for the CBT group were 38%, 44%, 44%, and 39%, respectively (Figure 3). For the psychodynamic therapy group, remission rates were 28%, 37%, 37%, and 38%, respectively (Figure 3).
TABLE 2. Outcomes for Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder Randomly Assigned to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or Psychodynamic Therapy (Intention-to-Treat Sample)a
Outcome, Assessment Scale, and Time of EvaluationCBT Group (N=209)Psychodynamic Therapy Group (N=207)
 % 95% CI% 95% CI
Remittedb      
 Posttherapy38 30–4528 21–35
 Six-month follow-up44 34–5337 27–46
 Twelve-month follow-up44 32–5537 25–48
 Twenty-four-month follow-up39 25–4238 22–54
Respondedc      
 Posttherapy63 55–7158 49–67
 Six-month follow-up72 62–8165 55–75
 Twelve-month follow-up70 58–8264 52–76
 Twenty-four-month follow-up69 53–8469 54–84
 MeanSD95% CIMeanSD95% CI
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale scored      
 Baseline72.0622.3920.43–24.7773.2622.1820.23–24.55
 Posttherapy41.4335.0036.65–46.2146.7036.8441.64–51.76
 Six-month follow-up38.0843.3032.16–44.0042.9443.9136.91–48.97
 Twelve-month follow-up38.2854.1030.88–45.6742.6958.0934.71–50.67
 Twenty-four-month follow-up39.1463.8630.41–47.8740.1672.2730.23–50.09
Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory scoree      
 Baseline90.0519.1787.43–92.6790.4019.1187.77–93.02
 Posttherapy64.4831.5560.16–68.7973.1828.6869.24–77.12
 Six-month follow-up62.5134.5557.79–67.2468.1033.4763.50–72.70
 Twelve-month follow-up63.5235.8858.61–68.4267.2839.1661.90–72.66
 Twenty-four-month follow-up64.8540.5659.30–70.3966.3946.0860.06–72.72
Beck Depression Inventory scoref      
 Baseline14.448.8313.24–15.6513.709.5712.38–15.01
 Posttherapy8.278.357.13–9.419.809.358.51–11.08
 Six-month follow-up8.129.196.87–9.389.279.507.96–10.57
 Twelve-month follow-up8.209.346.93–9.488.829.167.57–10.08
 Twenty-four-month follow-up8.529.117.27–9.769.4610.977.95–10.96
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems scoreg      
 Baseline14.273.7713.75–14.7814.023.9113.48–14.56
 Posttherapy10.945.3610.21–11.6712.295.5611.53–13.06
 Six-month follow-up10.326.349.46–11.1911.056.0110.22–11.87
 Twelve-month follow-up10.216.219.36–11.0610.826.359.95–11.69
 Twenty-four-month follow-up10.586.579.68–11.4810.657.189.67–11.64
a
All analyses were performed with data from the intention-to-treat sample using multiple imputation.
b
Values represent the proportion of patients who remitted, defined as a score <30 on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale.
c
Values represent the proportion of patients who had a response to therapy, defined as a reduction in the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale score by ≥31%.
d
Scores on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale range from 0 to 144, with higher scores indicating greater pathology.
e
Scores on the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory range from 0 to 132, with higher scores indicating greater pathology.
f
Scores on the Beck Depression Inventory range from 0 to 63, with higher scores indicating greater pathology.
g
Scores on the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems range from 0 to 32, with higher scores indicating greater pathology.
FIGURE 2. Response Rates for Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Psychodynamic Therapy in Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder
FIGURE 3. Remission Rates for Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Psychodynamic Therapy in Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder
There was a general tendency of an increase over time in success rates for both CBT and psychodynamic therapy. However, when we adjusted the level of significance for multiple testing to protect against type-I error inflation (0.008=0.05/6 comparisons), changes did not achieve statistical significance. Thus, rates of response and remission can be regarded as stable over time for both treatment conditions.
For rates of remission, pairwise comparisons from a multilevel mixed logistic regression model including study center, baseline Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale scores, and therapists as covariates showed that there were no significant differences between the treatment conditions at the 6-month (Cohen’s h=0.16), 12-month (Cohen’s h=0.16), and 24-month (Cohen’s h=0.01) follow-up assessments (6-month: odds ratio=1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.80–2.39; 12-month: odds ratio=1.36, 95% CI=0.77–2.40; 24-month: odds ratio=1.03, 95% CI=0.57–1.85). This was also true for response rates (6-month: Cohen’s h=0.23, odds ratio=1.48, 95% CI=0.86–2.56; 12-month: Cohen’s h=0.20, odds ratio=1.42, 95% CI=0.80–2.53; 24-month: Cohen’s h=0.02, odds ratio=1.04, 95% CI=0.54–1.98).
In order to examine whether estimating missing data by multiple imputation had an effect on the comparison of psychodynamic therapy and CBT with regard to remission and response, we included missing or not missing (0/1) as a covariate in an additional analysis. Whereas the per-protocol analysis takes into account only data for the per-protocol patients, this analysis includes both the per-protocol patients and the group of patients who dropped out with data that were estimated by multiple imputation. The analysis examines whether the comparison of CBT and psychodynamic therapy is affected by estimating missing data by multiple imputation. Results were corroborated for the three follow-up assessments, with no significant differences between CBT and psychodynamic therapy. Thus, estimating missing data by multiple imputation had no significant effect on the comparison of CBT and psychodynamic therapy.
Analysis for patients who completed the study per protocol corroborated the results, with somewhat higher rates of remission and response in both treatment conditions. For CBT, rates of remission immediately after the end of treatment and 6, 12, and 24 months after therapy were 42%, 54%, 58%, and 49%, respectively. For psychodynamic therapy, the rates were 30%, 44%, 49%, and 56%, respectively. For response, the corresponding rates for CBT were 66%, 79%, 78%, and 80%, respectively. The corresponding rates for psychodynamic therapy were 57%, 66%, 66%, and 81%, respectively.
With regard to continuous measures, there were no significant changes across the four times of assessment for CBT in the total score on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale and in scores on the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, and the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. This result was also true for psychodynamic therapy with regard to the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale total score and ratings on the Beck Depression Inventory and Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Again, the level of significance was adjusted to 0.0083. However, for interpersonal problems (Inventory of Interpersonal Problems), the psychodynamic therapy group achieved further significant improvements between postassessment and the 12-month follow-up (p=0.008, Cohen’s d=0.26) and between postassessment and the 24-month follow-up (p=0.004, Cohen’s d=0.28) and eventually showed the same level of interpersonal problems as the CBT group (Table 2).
Planned pairwise comparisons comparing follow-up data by linear effects models, including study center and baseline scores as fixed covariates and therapists and patients as nested random covariates, did not reveal significant differences between the treatment conditions with regard to any of the secondary outcome measures. This was true for the 6-month, 12-month, and 24-month assessments (Table 2). All between-group effects sizes were small (Cohen’s d=0.01–0.17), with proportions of variance explained by treatment condition below 1% (24, p. 22).

Discussion

In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, we examined both the short- and long-term outcome of psychodynamic therapy and CBT in social anxiety disorder. As previously reported, both treatment conditions were superior to a wait-list control in the short-term after treatment (6). Immediately following treatment, no statistically significant differences between CBT and psychodynamic therapy were found with regard to response and the reduction of depression (6). With regard to remission, there was a statistically significant but small difference in terms of between-group effect sizes in favor of CBT, which was below the a priori threshold for clinical significance. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences in favor of CBT with regard to self-reported symptoms of social anxiety and interpersonal problems, which again were small in terms of between-group effect sizes.
At the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up assessments after the end of treatment, no significant differences between the treatment conditions were found in response and remission or in secondary measures. Results of intention-to-treat analysis were corroborated by per-protocol analysis. At the follow-up assessments, the absolute differences in rates of remission and response between psychodynamic therapy and CBT were small. For remission, the rates ranged between 1% and 7%. For response, the rates ranged between 0% and 7%. In summary, four out of 24 comparisons carried out posttherapy or during the follow-up assessment period yielded statistically significant differences between treatments (17%). These results are consistent with a recent meta-analysis reporting psychodynamic therapy to be as efficacious as other established treatments in treating anxiety disorders (29).
Differences in success rates can be transformed into other measures of effect size or clinical significance. The significant difference in remission of 10% in favor of CBT that we found at the end of therapy corresponds to a number needed to treat of 10 (30, p. 992). For comparison, small, medium, and large effect sizes in terms of Cohen’s d correspond to the numbers needed to treat of 8.89, 3.62, and 2.33 (30, p. 992). The larger the difference in effect size, the less patients have to be treated to achieve one more treatment success. If one treatment is not successful at all and the other is successful in every case (100% difference in success rates), the number needed to treat is 1 (30). Another measure of clinical significance is provided by the area under the receiver operation characteristic curve indicating the probability that a patient treated with treatment 1 achieves a better outcome than a patient treated with treatment 2 (30). A difference in remission rates of 10% indicates a probability of 0.55 that a patient treated with CBT achieves a higher remission rate at the end of treatment than a patient treated with psychodynamic therapy. By a probability of 0.5, equal efficacy is indicated. Accordingly, a strong recommendation of CBT over psychodynamic psychotherapy in the treatment of social anxiety disorder is not warranted (15), in particular if the results of the follow-up assessment period are taken into account. It is of note that the method of manual-guided psychodynamic therapy for social anxiety disorder was only developed in 2007 (17) and tested for the first time in the present study. We will conduct further research to enhance the efficacy of the psychodynamic therapy approach in social anxiety disorder.
Rates of response and remission were stable and tended to increase in the long-term in both CBT and psychodynamic therapy. For psychodynamic therapy, improvements in interpersonal problems increased significantly during the follow-up period, suggesting that after the end of treatment, patients treated with psychodynamic therapy continued to work on their interpersonal problems. This result seems to demonstrate what Brom et al. (31) referred to as the “incubation effect.” Thus, CBT appears to improve interpersonal problems faster, whereas in psychodynamic therapy, improvements seem to take time to emerge following the end of therapy, but eventually the same level of interpersonal problems as in CBT is achieved.
A limitation of our study may be seen in the attenuation of the sample during the follow-up period. Because the data analysis was based on an intention-to-treat sample, no loss in statistical power was implied. However, the more data that are missing, the less accurate the estimates can be expected to be. Under the assumption of missing at random, multiple imputation yields unbiased and more accurate results than the last-observation-carried-forward procedure (28). Because multiple imputation leads to more conservative estimates than using only the existing values or the last-observation-carried-forward approach, we examined through additional analysis whether estimating missing data by multiple imputation affected the comparison of psychodynamic therapy and CBT. According to our analysis, this was not the case. Nevertheless, high rates of dropout represent a problem for any data analysis. There is no “right” answer to this problem. We chose a strategy for data analysis that seemed best under the given conditions. Nevertheless, reducing the dropout rate in long-term follow-up studies is desirable. In future studies, measures should be taken to minimize dropout during the follow-up period (e.g., remaining in contact with the patients).
The small differences in outcome between CBT and psychodynamic therapy in the treatment of social anxiety disorder suggest that it may be useful to examine whether there are patients who benefit more in one treatment condition over the other. We will conduct further analyses to identify predictors of treatment outcome. As an advantage, the Social Phobia Psychotherapy Network Study is large enough to allow for such analyses. As noted above, the Social Phobia Psychotherapy Network Study is sufficiently powered to detect small differences between established treatments (32). There are several randomized controlled trials of psychodynamic therapy that are sufficiently powered to detect small or at least moderate differences (18, 33–39). A randomized controlled trial conducted by Bateman and Fonagy (39) examined mentalization-based therapy compared with a structured clinical management condition.
As shown by the rates of remission reported in the present study, there is still room for improvement. Patients who did not achieve remission may need a different form of treatment that is more specific, more intensive, or of longer duration. The research group of Abbass et al. (40, 41) presented treatments specifically tailored to treatment-resistant depressive and/or anxiety disorders. For the psychodynamic treatment of social anxiety disorder, implementing a specific treatment module for patients at risk of nonresponse has been suggested (42). The risk of nonresponse may also be reduced by using feedback from patient progress during treatment (43). Another approach suggests that outcome in both social anxiety disorder and anxiety disorders in general may be improved by integrating effective treatment components of empirically supported treatment approaches within a unified protocol. For CBT, several unified protocols for anxiety disorders are available (44). For psychodynamic therapy, a unified protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of anxiety disorders was recently presented (45). Another psychodynamic protocol extends the treatment for panic disorder to the treatment of other anxiety disorders (46). The latter approach represents a transdiagnostic, but not unified, protocol, with evidence for panic disorder presently in the literature (47). These developments represent a promising approach for improving treatments not only for anxiety disorders but for other mental disorders as well. However, evidence that unified protocols are more efficacious than disorder-specific treatments has yet to be established. Thus, further research regarding such protocols is required.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all involved patients and therapists for their participation, as well as Nina Stuhldreher, M.Sc., Department of Medical Sociology and Health Economics, Hamburg Center for Health Economics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, for statistical support.

Footnote

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material (1074_ds001.pdf)

References

1.
Stein MB, Stein DJ: Social anxiety disorder. Lancet 2008; 371:1115–1125
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Kessler RC: The impairments caused by social phobia in the general population: implications for intervention. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2003; 108:19–27
Crossref
Google Scholar
3.
Keller MB: The lifelong course of social anxiety disorder: a clinical perspective. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2003; 417:85–94
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Ponniah K, Hollon SD: Empirically supported psychological interventions for social phobia in adults: a qualitative review of randomized controlled trials. Psychol Med 2008; 38:3–14
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Acarturk C, Cuijpers P, van Straten A, de Graaf R: Psychological treatment of social anxiety disorder: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 2009; 39:241–254
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Leichsenring F, Salzer S, Beutel ME, Herpertz S, Hiller W, Hoyer J, Huesing J, Joraschky P, Nolting B, Poehlmann K, Ritter V, Stangier U, Strauss B, Stuhldreher N, Tefikow S, Teismann T, Willutzki U, Wiltink J, Leibing E: Psychodynamic therapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy in social anxiety disorder: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170:759–767
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Mersch PP: The treatment of social phobia: the differential effectiveness of exposure in vivo and an integration of exposure in vivo, rational emotive therapy and social skills training. Behav Res Ther 1995; 33:259–269
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Oosterbaan DB, van Balkom AJLM, Spinhoven P, van Oppen P, van Dyck R: Cognitive therapy versus moclobemidein social phobia: a controlled study. Clin Psychol Psychother 2001; 8:263–273
Crossref
Google Scholar
9.
Leichsenring F, Hoyer J, Beutel M, Herpertz S, Hiller W, Irle E, Joraschky P, Konig HH, de Liz TM, Nolting B, Pohlmann K, Salzer S, Schauenburg H, Stangier U, Strauss B, Subic-Wrana C, Vormfelde S, Weniger G, Willutzki U, Wiltink J, Leibing E: The Social Phobia Psychotherapy Research Network: the first multicenter randomized controlled trial of psychotherapy for social phobia: rationale, methods and patient characteristics. Psychother Psychosom 2009; 78:35–41
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Wittchen HU, Zaudig M, Fydrich T: Strukturiertes Klinisches Interview für DSM-IV (SKID-I und SKID-II). Göttingen, Germany, Hogrefe, 1997
Google Scholar
11.
Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG, Schneier FR, Davies SO, Liebowitz MR: Screening for social anxiety disorder in the clinical setting: using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale. J Anxiety Disord 2002; 16:661–673
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Brown TA, diNardo P, Barlow DH: Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule Adult Version. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 1994
Google Scholar
13.
Clark D, Wells A: A cognitive model of social phobia, in Social Phobia: Diagnosis, Assessment, Treatment. Edited by, Heimberg RG, Liebowitz MR, Hope DA, Schneider FR. New York, Guilford, 1995, pp 69–93
Google Scholar
14.
Stangier U, Clark D, Ehlers A: Soziale Phobie. Fortschritte der Psychotherapie. Göttingen, Germany, Hogrefe, 2006
Google Scholar
15.
Leichsenring F, Salzer S, Leibing E: Response to Dr. Clark. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170:1365–1366
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
16.
Luborsky L: Principles of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy: Manual for Supportive-Expressive Treatment. New York, Basic Book, 1984
Google Scholar
17.
Leichsenring F, Beutel M, Leibing E: A manual for short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy of social phobia. Bull Menninger Clin 2007; 71:56–84
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Crits-Christoph P, Siqueland L, Blaine J, Frank A, Luborsky L, Onken LS, Muenz LR, Thase ME, Weiss RD, Gastfriend DR, Woody GE, Barber JP, Butler SF, Daley D, Salloum I, Bishop S, Najavits LM, Lis J, Mercer D, Griffin ML, Moras K, Beck AT: Psychosocial treatments for cocaine dependence: National Institute on Drug Abuse Collaborative Cocaine Treatment Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56:493–502
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
19.
Liebowitz MR, Mangano RM, Bradwejn J, Asnis G; SAD Study Group: A randomized controlled trial of venlafaxine extended release in generalized social anxiety disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66:238–247
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Bandelow B, Baldwin DS, Dolberg OT, Andersen HF, Stein DJ: What is the threshold for symptomatic response and remission for major depressive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder? J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67:1428–1434
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Beidel DC, Borden JW, Turner SM, Jacob RG: The Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory: concurrent validity with a clinic sample. Behav Res Ther 1989; 27:573–576
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J: An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961; 4:561–571
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Horowitz L, Strauß B, Kordy H: Inventar zur Erfassung interpersonaler Probleme: deutsche version (IIP-D). Weinheim, Germany, Beltz, 1994
Google Scholar
24.
Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988
Google Scholar
25.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner AG: G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39:175–191
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Raghunathan TE, Lepkowski JM, Van Hoewyk J, Solenberger P: A multivariate technique for multiply imputing missing values using a sequence of regression models. Surv Methodol 2001; 27:85–95
Google Scholar
27.
van Buuren S: Multiple imputation of discrete and continuous data by fully conditional specification. Stat Methods Med Res 2007; 16:219–242
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Salim A, Mackinnon A, Christensen H, Griffiths K: Comparison of data analysis strategies for intent-to-treat analysis in pre-test-post-test designs with substantial dropout rates. Psychiatry Res 2008; 160:335–345
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Keefe JR, McCarthy KS, Dinger U, Zilcha-Mano S, Barber J: A meta-analytic review of psychodynamic therapies for anxiety disorders. Clin Psychol Rev 2014; 34:309–323
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Kraemer HC, Kupfer DJ: Size of treatment effects and their importance to clinical research and practice. Biol Psychiatry 2006; 59:990–996
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Brom D, Kleber RJ, Defares PB: Brief psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989; 57:607–612
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Leichsenring F, Klein S: Evidence for psychodynamic psychotherapy in specific mental disorders: a systematic review. Psychoanal Psychother 2014; 28:4–32
Crossref
Google Scholar
33.
de Jonghe F, Hendricksen M, van Aalst G, Kool S, Peen V, Van R, van den Eijnden E, Dekker J: Psychotherapy alone and combined with pharmacotherapy in the treatment of depression. Br J Psychiatry 2004; 185:37–45
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
de Jonghe F, Kool S, van Aalst G, Dekker J, Peen J: Combining psychotherapy and antidepressants in the treatment of depression. J Affect Disord 2001; 64:217–229
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Driessen E, Van HL, Don FJ, Peen J, Kool S, Westra D, Hendriksen M, Schoevers RA, Cuijpers P, Twisk JW, Dekker JJ: The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic therapy in the outpatient treatment of major depression: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Psychiatry 2013; 170:1041–1050
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Barber JP, Barrett MS, Gallop R, Rynn MA, Rickels K: Short-term dynamic psychotherapy versus pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Psychiatry 2012; 73:66–73
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
37.
Knekt P, Lindfors O, Härkänen T, Välikoski M, Virtala E, Laaksonen MA, Marttunen M, Kaipainen M, Renlund C; Helsinki Psychotherapy Study Group: 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; 38:689–703
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
38.
Zipfel S, Wild B, Groß G, Friederich H-C, Teufel M, Schellberg D, Giel KE, de Zwaan M, Dinkel A, Herpertz S, Burgmer M, Löwe B, Tagay S, von Wietersheim J, Zeeck A, Schade-Brittinger C, Schauenburg H, Herzog W; ANTOP Study Group: Focal psychodynamic therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, and optimised treatment as usual in outpatients with anorexia nervosa (ANTOP Study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 383:127–137
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
39.
Bateman A, Fonagy P: Randomized controlled trial of outpatient mentalization-based treatment versus structured clinical management for borderline personality disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2009; 166:1355–1364
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
40.
Abbass AA: Intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy of treatment-resistant depression: a pilot study. Depress Anxiety 2006; 23:449–452
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
41.
Solbakken OA, Abbass A: Implementation of an intensive short-term dynamic treatment program for patients with treatment-resistant disorders in residential care. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14:12
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
42.
Leichsenring F, Beutel M, Salzer S, Haselbacher A, Wiltink J: Psychodynamische Therapie der sozialen Phobie [Psychodynamic Therapy of Social Phobia]. Göttingen, Germany, Hogrefe (in press)
Google Scholar
43.
Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Vermeersch DA, Smart DW, Hawkins EJ, Nielsen SL, Goates M: Enhancing psychotherapy outcomes via providing feedback on client progress: a replication. Clin Psychol Psychother 2002; 9:91–103
Crossref
Google Scholar
44.
Norton PJ, Philipp LM: Transdiagnostic approaches to the treatment of anxiety disorders: a quantitative review. Psychotherapy (Chic) 2008; 45:214–226
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
45.
Leichserning F, Salzer S: A unified protocol for the transdiagnostic psychodynamic treatment of anxiety disorders: an evidence-based approach. Psychotherapy (Chic) 51:224–245 2014
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar
46.
Busch FN, Singer MB, Milrod BL, Aronson AC: Manual of Panic Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy: Extended Range. New York, Taylor and Francis, 2012
Google Scholar
47.
Milrod B, Leon AC, Busch F, Rudden M, Schwalberg M, Clarkin J, Aronson A, Singer M, Turchin W, Klass ET, Graf E, Teres JJ, Shear MK: A randomized controlled clinical trial of psychoanalytic psychotherapy for panic disorder. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:265–272
Crossref
PubMed
Google Scholar

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
Go to American Journal of Psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Volume 171 • Number 10 • October 2014
Pages: 1074 - 1082
PubMed: 25016974

History

Received: 19 November 2013
Revision received: 12 March 2014
Revision received: 22 April 2014
Accepted: 25 April 2014
Published online: 1 October 2014
Published in print: October 2014

Authors

Details

Falk Leichsenring, D.Sc.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Simone Salzer, D.Sc.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Manfred E. Beutel, M.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Stephan Herpertz, M.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Wolfgang Hiller, Ph.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Juergen Hoyer, Ph.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Johannes Huesing, Dr.Rer.Medic.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Peter Joraschky, M.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Bjoern Nolting, M.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Karin Poehlmann, Ph.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Viktoria Ritter, D.Phil.Nat.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Ulrich Stangier, D.Sc.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Bernhard Strauss, Ph.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Susan Tefikow, Ph.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Tobias Teismann, Ph.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Ulrike Willutzki, Ph.D
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Joerg Wiltink, M.D.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author
Eric Leibing, D.Sc.
From the Clinic of Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medicine, Georg-August University Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, LWL-University Clinic Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Coordination Center for Clinical Trials, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; the Clinic for Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany; the Institute of Psychosocial Medicine and Psychotherapy, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany; the Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
View all articles by this author

Notes

Address correspondence to Dr. Leichsenring ([email protected]).

Funding Information

Dr. Beutel has received speaker’s honoraria from Böhringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr. Hoyer has received speaker’s honoraria from AstraZeneca. All other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Supplementary Material
Supported by grant 01GV0607 from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export Citations

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.

Format
Citation style
Style
Copy to clipboard
Tips for downloading citations

View Options

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/EPUB

Get Access

Login options

Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.

Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens login
Item saved, go to cart
Purchase Options

Purchase this article to access the full text.

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

PPV Articles - American Journal of Psychiatry

Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now / Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share article link

Share

×

As described within the American Psychiatric Association (APA)'s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences. Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.