SynthesisClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Co-Dependency Revisited: An Integrative Review of Conceptualisations and Mental Health Outcomes.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Co-dependency is a contested construct, applied to a broad range of relational difficulties. Despite its relevance, the term remains conceptually fragmented. This limits research development and clinical recognition, hindering the creation of effective interventions. An integrative systematic review is therefore needed to consolidate recent evidence and clarify its clinical significance, aiming to synthesise conceptualisations and mental health outcomes. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and PROSPERO registration (CRD42024575573), Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, EBSCO, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES were searched in September 2024 for peer-reviewed studies published between 2013 and 2024. Eligible studies addressed co-dependency's conceptualisation and/or mental health outcomes in adults. Risk of bias was assessed using MMAT and JBI for textual evidence. Thirty studies met inclusion criteria (14 quantitative, 9 qualitative and 7 theoretical). Narrative synthesis identified six conceptual perspectives: sociocultural, relational, addiction/pathology-based, developmental, psychoanalytic and cognitive-personality. Co-dependency was consistently associated with emotional distress, disrupted identity and impaired relational functioning. Two integrative frameworks are proposed: one mapping intrapersonal and interpersonal contributors to co-dependency, and one illustrating a perpetuating model of mental health outcomes. Limitations include limited cultural generalisability and the exclusion of studies addressing adjacent constructs. Strengths include methodological diversity, transparent quality appraisal and the generation of clinically relevant models. Findings support a shift towards relationally and developmentally informed understandings of co-dependency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.