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

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: We included two RCTs: The first study investigated Therapeutic Assessment (TA) combined with Manual-Assisted Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MACT) compared with MACT only in 16 outpatients with personality disorders. The trial found among completers (n = 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.