心理治疗的负面影响及其与长期结果的差异关联:一项针对抑郁症强化日间治疗项目的观察性研究。

IF 3.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Svenja Sürig, Rachel Dale, Philipp Herzog, Sarah Glanert, Ulrike Grave, Nele Assmann, Bartosz Zurowski, Stefan Borgwardt, Jan Philipp Klein, Thomas Probst
{"title":"心理治疗的负面影响及其与长期结果的差异关联:一项针对抑郁症强化日间治疗项目的观察性研究。","authors":"Svenja Sürig, Rachel Dale, Philipp Herzog, Sarah Glanert, Ulrike Grave, Nele Assmann, Bartosz Zurowski, Stefan Borgwardt, Jan Philipp Klein, Thomas Probst","doi":"10.1080/16506073.2025.2464641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While most psychotherapy methods are about equally effective, it is unclear if (1) different methods of psychotherapy differ in the severity of negative effects, (2) negative effects impact outcome and (3) this impact is moderated by psychotherapy method. We analyzed data from an observational study of 141 patients from a day treatment program for depression. Based on shared decision-making, patients were treated with either Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) or Metacognitive Therapy (MCT). Negative effects were assessed with the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ), severity of depressive symptoms with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR). Treatment groups were propensity score matched to account for baseline differences. Severity of negative effects did not differ between CBASP and MCT. The association between negative effects and outcome was moderated by treatment method. For patients treated with CBASP, negative effects were associated with outcome: those experiencing the lowest severity of negative effects had the greatest improvement in symptoms during treatment. Treatments were equally tolerated but differed in their association between negative effects and outcome. Results need to be considered with caution due to the considerable drop-out rate during the follow-up period and the non-controlled nature of our study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10535,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negative effects of psychotherapy and their differential association with long-term outcome: an observational study of an intensive day treatment program for depression.\",\"authors\":\"Svenja Sürig, Rachel Dale, Philipp Herzog, Sarah Glanert, Ulrike Grave, Nele Assmann, Bartosz Zurowski, Stefan Borgwardt, Jan Philipp Klein, Thomas Probst\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/16506073.2025.2464641\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>While most psychotherapy methods are about equally effective, it is unclear if (1) different methods of psychotherapy differ in the severity of negative effects, (2) negative effects impact outcome and (3) this impact is moderated by psychotherapy method. We analyzed data from an observational study of 141 patients from a day treatment program for depression. Based on shared decision-making, patients were treated with either Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) or Metacognitive Therapy (MCT). Negative effects were assessed with the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ), severity of depressive symptoms with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR). Treatment groups were propensity score matched to account for baseline differences. Severity of negative effects did not differ between CBASP and MCT. The association between negative effects and outcome was moderated by treatment method. For patients treated with CBASP, negative effects were associated with outcome: those experiencing the lowest severity of negative effects had the greatest improvement in symptoms during treatment. Treatments were equally tolerated but differed in their association between negative effects and outcome. Results need to be considered with caution due to the considerable drop-out rate during the follow-up period and the non-controlled nature of our study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2025.2464641\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Behaviour Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2025.2464641","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然大多数心理治疗方法都差不多有效,但目前尚不清楚(1)不同的心理治疗方法在负面影响的严重程度上是否不同,(2)负面影响影响结果,(3)这种影响是否被心理治疗方法所缓和。我们分析了一项观察性研究的数据,该研究对141名抑郁症患者进行了日间治疗。基于共同决策,患者接受心理治疗认知行为分析系统(CBASP)或元认知疗法(MCT)治疗。采用负面影响问卷(NEQ)和抑郁症状快速量表(QIDS-SR)评估抑郁症状的严重程度。治疗组倾向评分匹配,以解释基线差异。CBASP和MCT的不良反应严重程度无差异。不良反应与预后之间的关系因治疗方法而有所缓和。对于接受CBASP治疗的患者,负面影响与结果相关:负面影响程度最低的患者在治疗期间症状改善最大。治疗的耐受性相同,但其负面影响与结果之间的关联有所不同。由于随访期间有相当大的退出率以及本研究的非对照性质,需要谨慎考虑结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negative effects of psychotherapy and their differential association with long-term outcome: an observational study of an intensive day treatment program for depression.

While most psychotherapy methods are about equally effective, it is unclear if (1) different methods of psychotherapy differ in the severity of negative effects, (2) negative effects impact outcome and (3) this impact is moderated by psychotherapy method. We analyzed data from an observational study of 141 patients from a day treatment program for depression. Based on shared decision-making, patients were treated with either Cognitive Behavioral Analysis System of Psychotherapy (CBASP) or Metacognitive Therapy (MCT). Negative effects were assessed with the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ), severity of depressive symptoms with the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR). Treatment groups were propensity score matched to account for baseline differences. Severity of negative effects did not differ between CBASP and MCT. The association between negative effects and outcome was moderated by treatment method. For patients treated with CBASP, negative effects were associated with outcome: those experiencing the lowest severity of negative effects had the greatest improvement in symptoms during treatment. Treatments were equally tolerated but differed in their association between negative effects and outcome. Results need to be considered with caution due to the considerable drop-out rate during the follow-up period and the non-controlled nature of our study.

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
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Cognitive Behaviour Therapy is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the application of behavioural and cognitive sciences to clinical psychology and psychotherapy. The journal publishes state-of-the-art scientific articles within: - clinical and health psychology - psychopathology - behavioural medicine - assessment - treatment - theoretical issues pertinent to behavioural, cognitive and combined cognitive behavioural therapies With the number of high quality contributions increasing, the journal has been able to maintain a rapid publication schedule, providing readers with the latest research in the field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信