确定谁从抑郁症心理治疗中的支持与表达技术中获益最多:个体内部与个体之间效应的调节因子。

IF 4.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Journal of consulting and clinical psychology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-07 DOI:10.1037/ccp0000868
Sigal Zilcha-Mano, Christian A Webb
{"title":"确定谁从抑郁症心理治疗中的支持与表达技术中获益最多:个体内部与个体之间效应的调节因子。","authors":"Sigal Zilcha-Mano, Christian A Webb","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety exhibited better treatment outcomes in supportive-expressive therapy (SET) relative to supportive therapy (ST). But to gain insight into within-patient therapeutic changes, a within-individual design is required. The present study contrasts previous findings based on theory-driven between-patient moderators with data-driven moderators of within-patient processes to investigate whether findings converge or diverge across these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used data of 118 patients from the pilot and active phases of a recent RCT for patients with major depressive disorder, comparing ST with SET, a time-limited psychodynamic therapy. The predefined primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Supportive versus expressive techniques were rated based on patients' end-of-session perspective. We compared previous findings based on moderators of between-patient effects with a data-driven approach for identifying moderators of within-patient effects of techniques on subsequent outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After false discovery rate corrections, of 10 preselected moderators, patients' attachment anxiety and domineering style remained significant. Of these, bootstrap resampling revealed significant differences between ST and SET techniques for the attachment anxiety moderator: Those with higher attachment anxiety benefited more from greater use of ST than SET techniques in a particular session, as evidenced by lower levels of symptoms at the subsequent session.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our within-individual findings diverge from previously published between-individual analyses. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the importance of complementing between-individuals with within-individual analyses to achieve better understanding of who benefits most from specific treatment techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":" ","pages":"187-197"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying who benefits most from supportive versus expressive techniques in psychotherapy for depression: Moderators of within- versus between-individual effects.\",\"authors\":\"Sigal Zilcha-Mano, Christian A Webb\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/ccp0000868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety exhibited better treatment outcomes in supportive-expressive therapy (SET) relative to supportive therapy (ST). But to gain insight into within-patient therapeutic changes, a within-individual design is required. The present study contrasts previous findings based on theory-driven between-patient moderators with data-driven moderators of within-patient processes to investigate whether findings converge or diverge across these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used data of 118 patients from the pilot and active phases of a recent RCT for patients with major depressive disorder, comparing ST with SET, a time-limited psychodynamic therapy. The predefined primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Supportive versus expressive techniques were rated based on patients' end-of-session perspective. We compared previous findings based on moderators of between-patient effects with a data-driven approach for identifying moderators of within-patient effects of techniques on subsequent outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After false discovery rate corrections, of 10 preselected moderators, patients' attachment anxiety and domineering style remained significant. Of these, bootstrap resampling revealed significant differences between ST and SET techniques for the attachment anxiety moderator: Those with higher attachment anxiety benefited more from greater use of ST than SET techniques in a particular session, as evidenced by lower levels of symptoms at the subsequent session.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our within-individual findings diverge from previously published between-individual analyses. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the importance of complementing between-individuals with within-individual analyses to achieve better understanding of who benefits most from specific treatment techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"187-197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922855/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000868\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000868","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:最近的一项随机对照试验(RCT)表明,相对于支持治疗(ST),高水平依恋焦虑的个体在支持表达治疗(SET)中表现出更好的治疗效果。但要深入了解患者内部的治疗变化,需要进行个体内部设计。本研究对比了先前基于理论驱动的患者间调节因子和基于数据驱动的患者内部调节因子的研究结果,以调查这两种方法的研究结果是否一致或分歧。方法:我们使用了最近一项针对重度抑郁症患者的随机对照试验的先导期和活动期的118例患者的数据,比较了ST和SET(一种有时间限制的心理动力疗法)。预先确定的主要结果测量是汉密尔顿抑郁评定量表。支持性与表达性技术是基于患者的治疗结束观点进行评估的。我们比较了先前基于患者间效应调节因子的研究结果与数据驱动的方法,以确定技术对后续结果的患者内效应调节因子。结果:经错误发现率修正后,10个预选调节因子对患者依恋焦虑和霸道风格的影响仍然显著。其中,自举重新抽样揭示了ST和SET技术对依恋焦虑调节的显著差异:在特定的会话中,高依恋焦虑的人从更多地使用ST而不是SET技术中获益更多,正如在随后的会话中较低水平的症状所证明的那样。结论:我们的个体内研究结果与之前发表的个体间分析结果不同。这项概念验证研究证明了补充个体间和个体内分析的重要性,以更好地了解谁从特定治疗技术中获益最多。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying who benefits most from supportive versus expressive techniques in psychotherapy for depression: Moderators of within- versus between-individual effects.

Objective: A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety exhibited better treatment outcomes in supportive-expressive therapy (SET) relative to supportive therapy (ST). But to gain insight into within-patient therapeutic changes, a within-individual design is required. The present study contrasts previous findings based on theory-driven between-patient moderators with data-driven moderators of within-patient processes to investigate whether findings converge or diverge across these two approaches.

Method: We used data of 118 patients from the pilot and active phases of a recent RCT for patients with major depressive disorder, comparing ST with SET, a time-limited psychodynamic therapy. The predefined primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Supportive versus expressive techniques were rated based on patients' end-of-session perspective. We compared previous findings based on moderators of between-patient effects with a data-driven approach for identifying moderators of within-patient effects of techniques on subsequent outcome.

Results: After false discovery rate corrections, of 10 preselected moderators, patients' attachment anxiety and domineering style remained significant. Of these, bootstrap resampling revealed significant differences between ST and SET techniques for the attachment anxiety moderator: Those with higher attachment anxiety benefited more from greater use of ST than SET techniques in a particular session, as evidenced by lower levels of symptoms at the subsequent session.

Conclusions: Our within-individual findings diverge from previously published between-individual analyses. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the importance of complementing between-individuals with within-individual analyses to achieve better understanding of who benefits most from specific treatment techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.
×
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