SynthesisClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Attachment Styles in Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD), a leading cause of disability, is associated with difficulties in close relationships. Attachment theory links early caregiving to internal working models shaping emotion regulation, interpersonal functioning and depression vulnerability. Attachment patterns in clinically diagnosed MDD have not been synthesised. Following PRISMA (PROSPERO: CRD42017068580), we searched for studies of adults with standardised diagnoses of MDD or postpartum depression (PPD) and attachment measures. Random-effects meta-analyses expressed categorical outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous outcomes as Hedges' g. As a result, 61 studies met inclusion criteria: 33 case-control and 28 depression-only, of which five provided qualitative data only. Categorically, MDD/PPD showed lower secure (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15-0.26, p < 0.001) and higher anxious (OR = 2.46, 1.66-3.64, p < 0.001), avoidant (OR = 1.42, 1.04-1.95, p = 0.027) and fearful attachment (OR = 3.00, 1.97-4.54, p < 0.001) than healthy controls. On continuous measures, secure attachment was lower (g = -0.46, p = 0.003) and anxious (g = 0.63, p < 0.001) and avoidant (g = 0.41, p = 0.011) higher; fearful was not significant (g = 0.35, p = 0.062) until an outlier was removed. Single-arm prevalence meta-analyses found secure attachment in 24.1%, fearful in 26.9%, avoidant in 23.7% and anxious in 23.0%, with secure more prevalent in PPD than MDD (31.9% versus 21.3%, p = 0.009). In conclusion, MDD and PPD show lower secure and higher anxious, fearful and avoidant attachment than healthy controls. About three in four patients show insecure attachment, supporting attachment-informed assessment and treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.