A Randomized, Controlled, Preliminary Study to Assess the Efficacy of Logic-Based Therapy in Reducing Anxiety and/or Depression in Family Caregivers

Elliot D. Cohen, Barbara Piozzini, Chinmay Bapat, Jiuqing Cheng, Pablo Tagore Palma Soza, Vishakha N. Punjani, Himani Chaukar
{"title":"A Randomized, Controlled, Preliminary Study to Assess the Efficacy of Logic-Based Therapy in Reducing Anxiety and/or Depression in Family Caregivers","authors":"Elliot D. Cohen, Barbara Piozzini, Chinmay Bapat, Jiuqing Cheng, Pablo Tagore Palma Soza, Vishakha N. Punjani, Himani Chaukar","doi":"10.1007/s10942-023-00532-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper analyzes the findings of a preliminary, controlled efficacy study conducted by the National Philosophical Counseling Association of a prominent modality of philosophical counseling, Logic-Based Therapy (LBT). In this study, the latter modality was compared to a mindfulness activity. The study included 20 caretakers randomly divided into experimental and control groups. The hypothesis investigated was that a one-hour LBT session is more effective in reducing the level of (state or trait) anxiety and/or depression in family caregivers than a one-hour mindfulness session. Utilizing data compiled from study participants’ responses to the State Trait Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-2), two-way mixed ANOVA tests on three variables (state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression (BDI-2) scores) were performed as well as paired analyses yielding the preliminary conclusion (pending a more extensive study) that LBT shows promise as an effective intervention for reducing state anxiety as compared to the control condition, the mindfulness activity. </p>","PeriodicalId":501324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-023-00532-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper analyzes the findings of a preliminary, controlled efficacy study conducted by the National Philosophical Counseling Association of a prominent modality of philosophical counseling, Logic-Based Therapy (LBT). In this study, the latter modality was compared to a mindfulness activity. The study included 20 caretakers randomly divided into experimental and control groups. The hypothesis investigated was that a one-hour LBT session is more effective in reducing the level of (state or trait) anxiety and/or depression in family caregivers than a one-hour mindfulness session. Utilizing data compiled from study participants’ responses to the State Trait Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-2), two-way mixed ANOVA tests on three variables (state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression (BDI-2) scores) were performed as well as paired analyses yielding the preliminary conclusion (pending a more extensive study) that LBT shows promise as an effective intervention for reducing state anxiety as compared to the control condition, the mindfulness activity.

Abstract Image

一项随机、对照、初步研究评估逻辑疗法在减少家庭照顾者焦虑和/或抑郁方面的疗效
本文分析了国家哲学咨询协会对哲学咨询的一种重要模式——逻辑基础疗法(LBT)进行的初步对照疗效研究的结果。在这项研究中,后一种模式与正念活动进行了比较。这项研究包括20名看护人,他们被随机分为实验组和对照组。调查的假设是,一小时的lgbt课程比一小时的正念课程更有效地降低了家庭照顾者的焦虑和/或抑郁水平(状态或特征)。利用从研究参与者对状态-特质焦虑量表和贝克抑郁量表- ii (BDI-2)的反应中收集的数据,对三个变量(状态焦虑、特质焦虑和抑郁(BDI-2)得分)进行双向混合方差分析测试,并进行配对分析,得出初步结论(有待更广泛的研究),即与控制条件(正念活动)相比,LBT有望成为减少状态焦虑的有效干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信