Premium
Equine‐Related Treatments For Mental Disorders Lack Empirical Support: A Systematic Review of Empirical Investigations
Author(s) -
Anestis Michael D.,
Anestis Joye C.,
Zawilinski Laci L.,
Hopkins Tiffany A.,
Lilienfeld Scott O.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/jclp.22113
Subject(s) - psychology , context (archaeology) , clinical psychology , empirical research , mental health , systematic review , meaning (existential) , empirical evidence , psychiatry , evidence based practice , applied psychology , medline , psychotherapist , medicine , alternative medicine , paleontology , philosophy , epistemology , political science , law , biology , pathology
Context Equine‐related treatments (ERT) for mental disorders are becoming increasingly popular for a variety of diagnoses; however, they have been subjected only to limited systematic investigation. Objective To examine the quality of and results from peer‐reviewed research on ERT for mental disorders and related outcomes. Method Peer‐reviewed studies (k = 14) examining treatments for mental disorders or closely related outcomes were identified from databases and article reference sections. Results All studies were compromised by a substantial number of threats to validity, calling into question the meaning and clinical significance of their findings. Additionally, studies failed to provide consistent evidence that ERT is superior to the mere passage of time in the treatment of any mental disorder. Conclusion The current evidence base does not justify the marketing and utilization of ERT for mental disorders. Such services should not be offered to the public unless and until well‐designed studies provide evidence that justify different conclusions.