MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408773580 · doi:10.1556/2006.2025.00018

Psychotherapy for problematic pornography use: A comprehensive meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4408773580 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos López-Pinar, Javier Esparza-Reig, Beáta Bőthe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral Addictions · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMeta-analysisClinical psychologyCravingPsychological interventionPsychotherapistCognitive behavioral therapyAcceptance and commitment therapyPornographyCognitionIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryAddictionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Problematic pornography use (PPU) affects some individuals, causing distress and impaired functioning, and while psychotherapy is considered a first-line intervention, its efficacy remains understudied and unknown to many therapists. This review aimed to comprehensively synthesize the available evidence on psychotherapy for PPU and related problems (i.e., craving). Methods: For this meta-analytic systematic review, we conducted a systematic literature search, followed by study selection, coding, and data extraction. We then meta-analyzed the resulting studies using a random-effects model with subgroup analyses, meta-regressions, and risk of bias assessments. Results: 20 studies with 2,021 participants met the inclusion criteria. Most studies included cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy interventions. Participants receiving psychotherapy improved significantly more than controls on PPU, frequency/duration of pornography use, and sexual compulsivity, with large effect sizes, that were small for craving. Within-subject effects were also large and stable at follow-up. In addition, single-case designs meta-analyses showed clinically significant reductions in PPU, craving, and frequency/duration. We identified moderate effects for related depression symptoms. Most subgroup and meta-regression analyses adjusting for treatment and sample characteristics were not significant. Discussion: These results supports the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy in treating PPU and related problems. This has relevant implications for clinical practice (e.g., treating these problems with evidence-based interventions). However, these findings are limited by methodological issues, including the high risk of bias identified. To address these limitations, future research should use more rigorous methods (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and include more diverse groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.329
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioral AddictionsSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207