Group psychotherapy for eating disorders: A meta‐analysis. Issue 9 (3rd August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Grenon, Renee; Schwartze, Dominique; Hammond, Nicole; Ivanova, Iryna; Mcquaid, Nancy; Proulx, Genevieve; Tasca, Giorgio A.
• Is Part Of: International journal of eating disorders. Volume 50:Issue 9(2017)
• Page Start: 997
• Page End: 1013
• Publication Date: 2017-08-03
• Subjects: cognitive‐behavioral therapy -- group psychotherapy -- meta‐analysis -- randomized controlled trials; Appetite disorders -- Periodicals; Ingestion disorders -- Periodicals; Eating disorders -- Periodicals; 616.8526
• DOI: 10.1002/eat.22744
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0276-3478

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: In the current meta‐analysis, we review the effect of group psychotherapy compared to both wait‐list controls and other active treatments for adults with eating disorders (EDs). Method: Twenty‐seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that provide direct comparisons with a total of 1, 853 participants were included. Results: Group psychotherapy is significantly more effective than wait‐list controls at achieving abstinence rates of binge eating and/or purging (RR = 5.51, 95% CI: 3.73, 8.12), decreasing the frequency of binge eating and/or purging ( g = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51, 0.90), and reducing related ED psychopathology ( g = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.66) after treatment. The effects of group psychotherapy and other active treatments (e.g., behavioral weight loss, self‐help, individual psychotherapy) did not differ on any outcome at post‐treatment or at follow‐ups. Group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and other forms of group psychotherapy did not differ significantly on outcomes at any time point. Discussion: Additional research is needed to evaluate other group psychotherapy approaches, along with CBT, to provide more evidence‐based treatment options for individuals with an ED. Group psychotherapy appears as effective as other common treatments and is perhaps more cost‐effective than the most popular treatment, individual psychotherapy. Only 8.33% of comparisons in the current meta‐analysis had at least 80% power to detect a moderate effect ( d = .50) and we recommend that future RCTs be adequately powered.