{"title":"改良协作评估与标准评估对患者心理治疗准备度影响的随机对照优越性试验（CO-ASM-RCT）结果。","authors":"Oliver Rumle Hovmand, Nina Reinholt, Kirstine Dichmann, Radoslav Borisov, Carsten Hjorthøj, Sidse Arnfred","doi":"10.1186/s13063-024-08517-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) and social phobia (SP) are associated with high personal and societal costs. While psychotherapy can be efficient, many patients drop out during treatment. Little is known about what can be done to increase a patient's readiness for psychotherapy. However, research highlights the fields of collaborative and therapeutic assessment as a possible means to enhance readiness for psychotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized controlled feasibility and superiority trial on patients with SP or AvPD who were to initiate psychotherapeutic treatment in outpatient mental health services. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either assessment as usual or modified collaborative assessment (MCA), provided as a pre-treatment intervention before psychotherapy initiation. MCA included the collaborative administration of a battery of psychological tests designed to assess the patient's psychopathology more systematically. The tests were administered in collaboration with the patient, and detailed oral and written feedback was provided. We investigated the feasibility of the MCA intervention regarding acceptability, patient satisfaction, and adherence. We also investigated MCA's effect on readiness for psychotherapy, as assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA), and outcomes relating to symptomatology and dropout rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three prespecified feasibility outcomes were met. At the end of treatment, no significant difference was observed in any other outcome, except client satisfaction, which favored MCA (- 7.42 (95% CI - 11.75; - 3.09; p = 0.002)).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We found that MCA was feasible, and patients were highly satisfied with the intervention. It is relevant to investigate another implementation of MCA.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018312. Registered on August 24, 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":23333,"journal":{"name":"Trials","volume":"25 1","pages":"716"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515100/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results of a randomized controlled superiority trial of the effect of modified collaborative assessment vs. standard assessment on patients' readiness for psychotherapy (CO-ASSM-RCT).\",\"authors\":\"Oliver Rumle Hovmand, Nina Reinholt, Kirstine Dichmann, Radoslav Borisov, Carsten Hjorthøj, Sidse Arnfred\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13063-024-08517-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) and social phobia (SP) are associated with high personal and societal costs. While psychotherapy can be efficient, many patients drop out during treatment. Little is known about what can be done to increase a patient's readiness for psychotherapy. However, research highlights the fields of collaborative and therapeutic assessment as a possible means to enhance readiness for psychotherapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized controlled feasibility and superiority trial on patients with SP or AvPD who were to initiate psychotherapeutic treatment in outpatient mental health services. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either assessment as usual or modified collaborative assessment (MCA), provided as a pre-treatment intervention before psychotherapy initiation. MCA included the collaborative administration of a battery of psychological tests designed to assess the patient's psychopathology more systematically. The tests were administered in collaboration with the patient, and detailed oral and written feedback was provided. We investigated the feasibility of the MCA intervention regarding acceptability, patient satisfaction, and adherence. We also investigated MCA's effect on readiness for psychotherapy, as assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA), and outcomes relating to symptomatology and dropout rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All three prespecified feasibility outcomes were met. At the end of treatment, no significant difference was observed in any other outcome, except client satisfaction, which favored MCA (- 7.42 (95% CI - 11.75; - 3.09; p = 0.002)).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We found that MCA was feasible, and patients were highly satisfied with the intervention. It is relevant to investigate another implementation of MCA.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018312. Registered on August 24, 2021.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trials\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"716\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11515100/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08517-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08517-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Results of a randomized controlled superiority trial of the effect of modified collaborative assessment vs. standard assessment on patients' readiness for psychotherapy (CO-ASSM-RCT).
Background: Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) and social phobia (SP) are associated with high personal and societal costs. While psychotherapy can be efficient, many patients drop out during treatment. Little is known about what can be done to increase a patient's readiness for psychotherapy. However, research highlights the fields of collaborative and therapeutic assessment as a possible means to enhance readiness for psychotherapy.
Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled feasibility and superiority trial on patients with SP or AvPD who were to initiate psychotherapeutic treatment in outpatient mental health services. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either assessment as usual or modified collaborative assessment (MCA), provided as a pre-treatment intervention before psychotherapy initiation. MCA included the collaborative administration of a battery of psychological tests designed to assess the patient's psychopathology more systematically. The tests were administered in collaboration with the patient, and detailed oral and written feedback was provided. We investigated the feasibility of the MCA intervention regarding acceptability, patient satisfaction, and adherence. We also investigated MCA's effect on readiness for psychotherapy, as assessed with the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale (URICA), and outcomes relating to symptomatology and dropout rates.
Results: All three prespecified feasibility outcomes were met. At the end of treatment, no significant difference was observed in any other outcome, except client satisfaction, which favored MCA (- 7.42 (95% CI - 11.75; - 3.09; p = 0.002)).
Discussion: We found that MCA was feasible, and patients were highly satisfied with the intervention. It is relevant to investigate another implementation of MCA.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018312. Registered on August 24, 2021.
期刊介绍：
Trials is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that will encompass all aspects of the performance and findings of randomized controlled trials. Trials will experiment with, and then refine, innovative approaches to improving communication about trials. We are keen to move beyond publishing traditional trial results articles (although these will be included). We believe this represents an exciting opportunity to advance the science and reporting of trials. Prior to 2006, Trials was published as Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine (CCTCVM). All published CCTCVM articles are available via the Trials website and citations to CCTCVM article URLs will continue to be supported.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
