PSYCHOLOGISCHE
INTERVENTIES
SAMENVATTING
Gezondheidszorg
Master
2026, periode 4
Radboud Universiteit
Emma Leibbrand
, INHOUDSOPGAVE
Startbijeenkomst ............................................. 3
Ingrediënten van (On)Succesvolle Psychotherapie .............. 8
Neuropsychologische Behandelingen Deel 1 .................... 16
Neuropsychologische Behandelingen Deel 2 .................... 26
Gedragstherapie bij Ongewenst Gewoontegedrag ................ 28
Cognitieve Therapie ......................................... 38
Schema Therapie ............................................. 46
Systeem Therapie ............................................ 64
Mediatieve Gedragstherapie in de Ouderenzorg ................ 83
Mindfulness ................................................. 94
Psychodynamische Therapie .................................. 117
Acceptance & Commitment Therapie ........................... 133
Cognitieve Gedragstherapie bij Kind & Jeugd ................ 145
1
, [ Startbijeenkomst ]
(1) ZAK & PEKALA: EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLUTION-BASED BRIEF THERAPY: AN
UMBRELLA REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS
ABSTRACT
Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) (oplossingsgerichte therapie) across various
populations and settings. This study is an umbrella review.
Why this paper matters First umbrella review + global overview of evidence + shows where evidence is strong/weak.
Why an umbrella view? Research gap! = There are already a lot of systematic reviews, so the next step is an umbrella
review. It compares findings across reviews + checks consistency vs. contradictions + gives broader view.
INTRODUCTION
Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) Developed by Steve de Shazer and colleagues. The key idea is that this therapy
focuses on solutions, not on problems.
Built on the client’s preferred future (=where the problem is not in his/her life) + past successes (=increase awareness
of already existing personal strengths).
Why is studying SFBT important? Likely effective across age groups, problem types and cultures.
o It is shorter (=cost-effective + lower burnout risk for therapists).
Core take-away of conclusion There already is a lot of research on SFBT, but it’s scattered across many reviews. This
study brings everything together in an umbrella view with a focus on effectiveness + reliability + moderators.
METHODS
They searched 5 databases with systematic reviews and used two major tools:
AMSTAR 2 Assessed the quality of the systematic reviews (so not the original studies).
GRADE Assessed confidence in evidence (high, moderate, low).
They analysed RCTs and non-RCTs separately, and then combined them for an overall rating.
RESULTS
2080 papers were screened + 25 systematic reviews were included. So, there is a large body of research collected over
decades and in theory this could give a solid overview of SFBT.
However, more studies does not automatically mean better evidence quality matters.
They found a lot of overlap between reviews (71 unique studies, but cited 224 times). Many reviews are using the
same underlying studies again and again. This can make evidence look stronger than it really is.
o The researchers corrected for this, but this tells you that the field isn’t as large as it looks.
Using AMSTAR 2 they found 80% critically low quality, 20% low quality, and 0% high quality.
o 80% of the reviews have serious methodological problems (e.g. not checking for bias, not explaining which
studies they excluded, not searching thoroughly enough).
So, even though the results say that SFBT works well, the studies summarising the evidence are not very strong
Therefore, the umbrella view conclusions are also weaker.
o Why do authors still use them? It’s still the best available evidence + completely removing them would
leave too little data. So, they use the data but downgrade confidence in conclusions.
Because SFBT is studied in so many contexts, the included studies are very diverse. This diversity is important for
interpreting the results:
Participants SFBT is not tested in one specific disorder, like CBT for depression. Instead, it is tested as a general-
purpose therapy. This is good for real-world applicability, but harder to measure ‘one clear effect’
(because you are mixing many different problems into one evidence base).
Cultural Context The studies come from Western and Eastern countries, but they are methodologically not the same.
(!!!) Western studies compared SFBT to other therapies (harder test because you’re comparing to
something active).
Eastern studies compared SFBT to no treatment (easier test because you’re comparing to nothing,
and anything looks better than nothing).
This is one of the main reasons effect sizes differ so much
Western studies = smaller effects.
Eastern studies = much larger effects.
Not because SFBT works better in there, but because the comparison conditions are weaker
2
, Intervention SFBT was not delivered in one consistent way. Formats used were:
differences Group therapy, individual therapy, couples therapy, family therapy etc.
Eastern studies mostly used group-based SFBT, while Western studies had more variation.
Why does this matter? Differences in format add extra variability to results.
Treatment There is a very wide range (1 to 25 sessions).
intensity This is important because SFBT is defined as ‘brief’, but in practice, ‘brief’ varies a lot.
So, dose of therapy is inconsistent across studies.
Methodological Western studies More RCTs, active control groups, rigorous designs.
differences Eastern studies More experimental designs without clear randomisation, passive controls,
between missing methodological details.
regions
Sample size Some studies had very small samples (N = 1), while others had large samples (N = 760).
variability
Core insight here The variability in participants, settings, and study design is one of the main reasons why SFBT results
differ so much across studies.
We are not evaluating one consistent therapy in one consistent setting.
We are evaluating many versions of SFBT across many different contexts.
Overall effectiveness of SFBT
In Western studies, they found small effects (0.2 – 0.4) SFBT works, but modesty.
In Eastern studies, they found very large effects (1.0) Looks extremely effective, but this is likely influenced by
weaker controls + study design differences.
Combined There was a moderate effect (0.65). This is probably the most realistic estimate.
What influences effectiveness (moderators)?
Moderator = factor that changes the strength of the effect.
In what situations does SFBT work better, and in what situations does it work less well?
Type of SFBT works better when compared to no treatment.
control Largest effects were observed when it was compared to a waitlist condition/no intervention.
group Why? Because any therapy will outperform doing nothing. This inflates effect sizes significantly.
Delivery Group therapy often shows stronger effects. This may be because of peer support/normalisation of
format problems/shared solution generation/structured environment/efficiency (more people treated at once).
But not all studies agree + differences are not always consistent So, this is promising but not definitive.
Setting School settings show stronger effects (structured daily environment/clear and concrete goals/easier
(school vs. access to participants/short-term focus fits school context well.
clinical vs. THUS SFBT may be particularly well suited for structured, goal-oriented environments like
medical). schools.
Full SFBT Full SFBT shows stronger effects compared to partial use.
model vs. THUS SFBT is not just a set of techniques; it works best as a coherent therapeutic model.
partial use
Age effects Findings are mixed. Age is not a stable predictor of SFBT effectiveness
THUS SFBT appears usable across age groups, but not clearly ‘better’ for one group
Treatment No linear relationship, which means that more sessions ≠ better outcomes.
duration BUT some evidence suggests optimal range (6–10 sessions).
SFBT fits its ‘brief therapy’ identity:
o Short interventions may be sufficient.
o Longer therapy does not necessarily improve outcomes.
Outcome Some variation depending on outcome:
type (what Stronger effects sometimes for externalizing behaviours + school-related outcomes.
is being Weaker or mixed for relational or psychiatric outcomes
treated) BUT not consistent across studies.
3
INTERVENTIES
SAMENVATTING
Gezondheidszorg
Master
2026, periode 4
Radboud Universiteit
Emma Leibbrand
, INHOUDSOPGAVE
Startbijeenkomst ............................................. 3
Ingrediënten van (On)Succesvolle Psychotherapie .............. 8
Neuropsychologische Behandelingen Deel 1 .................... 16
Neuropsychologische Behandelingen Deel 2 .................... 26
Gedragstherapie bij Ongewenst Gewoontegedrag ................ 28
Cognitieve Therapie ......................................... 38
Schema Therapie ............................................. 46
Systeem Therapie ............................................ 64
Mediatieve Gedragstherapie in de Ouderenzorg ................ 83
Mindfulness ................................................. 94
Psychodynamische Therapie .................................. 117
Acceptance & Commitment Therapie ........................... 133
Cognitieve Gedragstherapie bij Kind & Jeugd ................ 145
1
, [ Startbijeenkomst ]
(1) ZAK & PEKALA: EFFECTIVENESS OF SOLUTION-BASED BRIEF THERAPY: AN
UMBRELLA REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS
ABSTRACT
Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) (oplossingsgerichte therapie) across various
populations and settings. This study is an umbrella review.
Why this paper matters First umbrella review + global overview of evidence + shows where evidence is strong/weak.
Why an umbrella view? Research gap! = There are already a lot of systematic reviews, so the next step is an umbrella
review. It compares findings across reviews + checks consistency vs. contradictions + gives broader view.
INTRODUCTION
Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) Developed by Steve de Shazer and colleagues. The key idea is that this therapy
focuses on solutions, not on problems.
Built on the client’s preferred future (=where the problem is not in his/her life) + past successes (=increase awareness
of already existing personal strengths).
Why is studying SFBT important? Likely effective across age groups, problem types and cultures.
o It is shorter (=cost-effective + lower burnout risk for therapists).
Core take-away of conclusion There already is a lot of research on SFBT, but it’s scattered across many reviews. This
study brings everything together in an umbrella view with a focus on effectiveness + reliability + moderators.
METHODS
They searched 5 databases with systematic reviews and used two major tools:
AMSTAR 2 Assessed the quality of the systematic reviews (so not the original studies).
GRADE Assessed confidence in evidence (high, moderate, low).
They analysed RCTs and non-RCTs separately, and then combined them for an overall rating.
RESULTS
2080 papers were screened + 25 systematic reviews were included. So, there is a large body of research collected over
decades and in theory this could give a solid overview of SFBT.
However, more studies does not automatically mean better evidence quality matters.
They found a lot of overlap between reviews (71 unique studies, but cited 224 times). Many reviews are using the
same underlying studies again and again. This can make evidence look stronger than it really is.
o The researchers corrected for this, but this tells you that the field isn’t as large as it looks.
Using AMSTAR 2 they found 80% critically low quality, 20% low quality, and 0% high quality.
o 80% of the reviews have serious methodological problems (e.g. not checking for bias, not explaining which
studies they excluded, not searching thoroughly enough).
So, even though the results say that SFBT works well, the studies summarising the evidence are not very strong
Therefore, the umbrella view conclusions are also weaker.
o Why do authors still use them? It’s still the best available evidence + completely removing them would
leave too little data. So, they use the data but downgrade confidence in conclusions.
Because SFBT is studied in so many contexts, the included studies are very diverse. This diversity is important for
interpreting the results:
Participants SFBT is not tested in one specific disorder, like CBT for depression. Instead, it is tested as a general-
purpose therapy. This is good for real-world applicability, but harder to measure ‘one clear effect’
(because you are mixing many different problems into one evidence base).
Cultural Context The studies come from Western and Eastern countries, but they are methodologically not the same.
(!!!) Western studies compared SFBT to other therapies (harder test because you’re comparing to
something active).
Eastern studies compared SFBT to no treatment (easier test because you’re comparing to nothing,
and anything looks better than nothing).
This is one of the main reasons effect sizes differ so much
Western studies = smaller effects.
Eastern studies = much larger effects.
Not because SFBT works better in there, but because the comparison conditions are weaker
2
, Intervention SFBT was not delivered in one consistent way. Formats used were:
differences Group therapy, individual therapy, couples therapy, family therapy etc.
Eastern studies mostly used group-based SFBT, while Western studies had more variation.
Why does this matter? Differences in format add extra variability to results.
Treatment There is a very wide range (1 to 25 sessions).
intensity This is important because SFBT is defined as ‘brief’, but in practice, ‘brief’ varies a lot.
So, dose of therapy is inconsistent across studies.
Methodological Western studies More RCTs, active control groups, rigorous designs.
differences Eastern studies More experimental designs without clear randomisation, passive controls,
between missing methodological details.
regions
Sample size Some studies had very small samples (N = 1), while others had large samples (N = 760).
variability
Core insight here The variability in participants, settings, and study design is one of the main reasons why SFBT results
differ so much across studies.
We are not evaluating one consistent therapy in one consistent setting.
We are evaluating many versions of SFBT across many different contexts.
Overall effectiveness of SFBT
In Western studies, they found small effects (0.2 – 0.4) SFBT works, but modesty.
In Eastern studies, they found very large effects (1.0) Looks extremely effective, but this is likely influenced by
weaker controls + study design differences.
Combined There was a moderate effect (0.65). This is probably the most realistic estimate.
What influences effectiveness (moderators)?
Moderator = factor that changes the strength of the effect.
In what situations does SFBT work better, and in what situations does it work less well?
Type of SFBT works better when compared to no treatment.
control Largest effects were observed when it was compared to a waitlist condition/no intervention.
group Why? Because any therapy will outperform doing nothing. This inflates effect sizes significantly.
Delivery Group therapy often shows stronger effects. This may be because of peer support/normalisation of
format problems/shared solution generation/structured environment/efficiency (more people treated at once).
But not all studies agree + differences are not always consistent So, this is promising but not definitive.
Setting School settings show stronger effects (structured daily environment/clear and concrete goals/easier
(school vs. access to participants/short-term focus fits school context well.
clinical vs. THUS SFBT may be particularly well suited for structured, goal-oriented environments like
medical). schools.
Full SFBT Full SFBT shows stronger effects compared to partial use.
model vs. THUS SFBT is not just a set of techniques; it works best as a coherent therapeutic model.
partial use
Age effects Findings are mixed. Age is not a stable predictor of SFBT effectiveness
THUS SFBT appears usable across age groups, but not clearly ‘better’ for one group
Treatment No linear relationship, which means that more sessions ≠ better outcomes.
duration BUT some evidence suggests optimal range (6–10 sessions).
SFBT fits its ‘brief therapy’ identity:
o Short interventions may be sufficient.
o Longer therapy does not necessarily improve outcomes.
Outcome Some variation depending on outcome:
type (what Stronger effects sometimes for externalizing behaviours + school-related outcomes.
is being Weaker or mixed for relational or psychiatric outcomes
treated) BUT not consistent across studies.
3
