Co‐Dependency Revisited: An Integrative Review of Conceptualisations and Mental Health Outcomes.
Saved in:
| Title: | Co‐Dependency Revisited: An Integrative Review of Conceptualisations and Mental Health Outcomes. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Molina, Elena (AUTHOR), Taiwo, Abigail (AUTHOR), Grey, Ben (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. Mar2026, Vol. 33 Issue 2, p1-21. 21p. |
| Subjects: | Codependency, Mental health, Conceptual models, Psychological adaptation, Psychology, Systematic reviews, MEDLINE, Theory, Interpersonal relations, Online information services, Psychology information storage & retrieval systems |
| 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. Summary: Co‐dependency appears to reflect relational patterns shaped by developmental vulnerabilities, trauma and sociocultural expectations rather than individual pathology.Behaviours often labelled as pathological may function as adaptive coping strategies within earlier relational environments; clinicians should explore their meaning and function.Trauma‐ and attachment‐informed formulations can help identify how internal vulnerabilities intersect with recurring interpersonal patterns.Interventions should emphasise relational safety, boundary‐setting, emotional regulation and identity differentiation.Cultural context plays a role in shaping expectations of care, obligation and self‐sacrifice; practitioners should assess these influences explicitly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
Be the first to leave a comment!
