转换到抑制学习方法暴露治疗对强化门诊项目结果的影响。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Molly H Nadel, Kate Rogers, Sandra Hadlock, Eric R Schuler, David A F Haaga
{"title":"转换到抑制学习方法暴露治疗对强化门诊项目结果的影响。","authors":"Molly H Nadel, Kate Rogers, Sandra Hadlock, Eric R Schuler, David A F Haaga","doi":"10.1002/jclp.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Exposure therapy is a commonly used, efficacious treatment for reducing symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders. Though exposure therapy has primarily been conducted using principles derived from emotional processing theory, many researchers are now suggesting that it would be more successful if it was conducted in accordance with learning research (i.e., the inhibitory learning approach). There is a strong conceptual rationale for conducting exposure therapy in accordance with the inhibitory learning approach but a paucity of direct empirical comparisons of the two methods, particularly in a naturalistic setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The current study includes 1968 participants seeking treatment for OCD and anxiety disorders. An interrupted time series analysis was used to compare treatment outcomes after participation in an intensive outpatient program for individuals who received exposure therapy based on emotional processing versus inhibitory learning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Symptom reduction following exposure therapy using the inhibitory learning approach was not significantly different than exposure therapy using emotional processing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>One possible interpretation for these findings is that in practice, the exposure approaches share significant overlap and therefore lead to comparable outcomes. Future research should assess the comparative efficacy of these treatment approaches using randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures to increase internal validity.</p>","PeriodicalId":15395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Switching to an Inhibitory Learning Approach to Exposure Therapy on Outcomes of an Intensive Outpatient Program.\",\"authors\":\"Molly H Nadel, Kate Rogers, Sandra Hadlock, Eric R Schuler, David A F Haaga\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jclp.70032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Exposure therapy is a commonly used, efficacious treatment for reducing symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders. Though exposure therapy has primarily been conducted using principles derived from emotional processing theory, many researchers are now suggesting that it would be more successful if it was conducted in accordance with learning research (i.e., the inhibitory learning approach). There is a strong conceptual rationale for conducting exposure therapy in accordance with the inhibitory learning approach but a paucity of direct empirical comparisons of the two methods, particularly in a naturalistic setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The current study includes 1968 participants seeking treatment for OCD and anxiety disorders. An interrupted time series analysis was used to compare treatment outcomes after participation in an intensive outpatient program for individuals who received exposure therapy based on emotional processing versus inhibitory learning.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Symptom reduction following exposure therapy using the inhibitory learning approach was not significantly different than exposure therapy using emotional processing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>One possible interpretation for these findings is that in practice, the exposure approaches share significant overlap and therefore lead to comparable outcomes. Future research should assess the comparative efficacy of these treatment approaches using randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures to increase internal validity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.70032\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.70032","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:暴露疗法是减轻强迫症和焦虑症症状的一种常用有效的治疗方法。虽然暴露疗法主要是使用源自情绪处理理论的原理进行的,但许多研究人员现在建议,如果它与学习研究(即抑制性学习方法)相一致,它会更成功。根据抑制性学习方法进行暴露疗法有很强的概念基础,但缺乏对两种方法的直接经验比较,特别是在自然环境中。方法:目前的研究包括1968名寻求强迫症和焦虑症治疗的参与者。中断时间序列分析用于比较接受基于情绪处理与抑制性学习的暴露疗法的个体参加强化门诊项目后的治疗结果。结果:使用抑制学习方法的暴露疗法与使用情绪加工方法的暴露疗法在症状减轻方面无显著差异。结论:对这些发现的一种可能的解释是,在实践中,暴露方法有很大的重叠,因此导致可比较的结果。未来的研究应该使用标准化结果测量的随机对照试验来评估这些治疗方法的比较疗效,以增加内部效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of Switching to an Inhibitory Learning Approach to Exposure Therapy on Outcomes of an Intensive Outpatient Program.

Objective: Exposure therapy is a commonly used, efficacious treatment for reducing symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders. Though exposure therapy has primarily been conducted using principles derived from emotional processing theory, many researchers are now suggesting that it would be more successful if it was conducted in accordance with learning research (i.e., the inhibitory learning approach). There is a strong conceptual rationale for conducting exposure therapy in accordance with the inhibitory learning approach but a paucity of direct empirical comparisons of the two methods, particularly in a naturalistic setting.

Methods: The current study includes 1968 participants seeking treatment for OCD and anxiety disorders. An interrupted time series analysis was used to compare treatment outcomes after participation in an intensive outpatient program for individuals who received exposure therapy based on emotional processing versus inhibitory learning.

Results: Symptom reduction following exposure therapy using the inhibitory learning approach was not significantly different than exposure therapy using emotional processing.

Conclusion: One possible interpretation for these findings is that in practice, the exposure approaches share significant overlap and therefore lead to comparable outcomes. Future research should assess the comparative efficacy of these treatment approaches using randomized controlled trials with standardized outcome measures to increase internal validity.

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
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Journal of Clinical Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.30%
发文量
177
期刊介绍: Founded in 1945, the Journal of Clinical Psychology is a peer-reviewed forum devoted to research, assessment, and practice. Published eight times a year, the Journal includes research studies; articles on contemporary professional issues, single case research; brief reports (including dissertations in brief); notes from the field; and news and notes. In addition to papers on psychopathology, psychodiagnostics, and the psychotherapeutic process, the journal welcomes articles focusing on psychotherapy effectiveness research, psychological assessment and treatment matching, clinical outcomes, clinical health psychology, and behavioral medicine.
×
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