{"title":"通过健康治疗干预减少痛苦不耐受:一项随机对照临床试验的结果。","authors":"Josephine Otto, Michael Linden","doi":"10.1177/2470547018800484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distress tolerance is the ability to pursue one's goals in the presence of (chronic) stressors, hardship, adversities and negative internal states, and psychological distress. By contrast, distress intolerance is a transdiagnostic indicator of mental illness and a mediator in coping with problems in life, work demands, or stress in general. There is a lack of data regarding intervention strategies. The objective of the present study is to test the differential effects of two treatment approaches: \"regeneration fostering\" versus \"resistance training.\"</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inpatients of a psychosomatic hospital were randomly allocated to either a resistance training group therapy (<i>n</i> = 65)-that is, active coping with demands and endurance-or a regeneration fostering group therapy (<i>n</i> = 62)-that is, recovery, mindful indulgence, and creative activities. They were compared with a group of patients who received treatment as usual (<i>n</i> = 43), without special treatments for distress intolerance, and the outcome was measured with the \"Distress Intolerance Scale.\" One-way and repeated measure analyses of variance and paired <i>t</i> tests were used for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The \"regeneration\" group showed a significant improvement in distress intolerance, whereas there was no significant change for the treatment-as-usual group and in the \"resistance\" group. Post hoc tests were conducted with paired sample <i>t</i> tests for pre-post comparisons for each group. No differences were found for the treatment-as-usual group (<i>mean difference</i>: 0.03, <i>SD</i> (mean difference): 0.89; <i>t</i>(42) = 0.266, <i>p</i> = 0.792, <i>d</i> = 0.04) and for the resistance group (<i>mean difference</i>:-0.07, <i>SD</i> (mean difference): 0.73; <i>t</i>(63) = -0.736, <i>p</i> = 0.464, <i>d</i> = 0.08). The regeneration group showed a significant decline in distress intolerance (<i>mean difference</i>: 0.29, <i>SD</i> (mean difference): 0.72; <i>t</i>(61) = 3.156, <i>p</i> = 0.002, <i>d</i> = 0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the treatment of distress intolerance, it seems promising to focus on positive psychology interventions and resources. Limitations of the study are that it was conducted with psychosomatic inpatients only and that no follow-up data are available.</p>","PeriodicalId":52315,"journal":{"name":"Chronic Stress","volume":" ","pages":"2470547018800484"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2470547018800484","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reduction of Distress Intolerance With Salutotherapeutic Interventions: Results From a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Josephine Otto, Michael Linden\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/2470547018800484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distress tolerance is the ability to pursue one's goals in the presence of (chronic) stressors, hardship, adversities and negative internal states, and psychological distress. By contrast, distress intolerance is a transdiagnostic indicator of mental illness and a mediator in coping with problems in life, work demands, or stress in general. There is a lack of data regarding intervention strategies. The objective of the present study is to test the differential effects of two treatment approaches: \\\"regeneration fostering\\\" versus \\\"resistance training.\\\"</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inpatients of a psychosomatic hospital were randomly allocated to either a resistance training group therapy (<i>n</i> = 65)-that is, active coping with demands and endurance-or a regeneration fostering group therapy (<i>n</i> = 62)-that is, recovery, mindful indulgence, and creative activities. They were compared with a group of patients who received treatment as usual (<i>n</i> = 43), without special treatments for distress intolerance, and the outcome was measured with the \\\"Distress Intolerance Scale.\\\" One-way and repeated measure analyses of variance and paired <i>t</i> tests were used for the analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The \\\"regeneration\\\" group showed a significant improvement in distress intolerance, whereas there was no significant change for the treatment-as-usual group and in the \\\"resistance\\\" group. Post hoc tests were conducted with paired sample <i>t</i> tests for pre-post comparisons for each group. No differences were found for the treatment-as-usual group (<i>mean difference</i>: 0.03, <i>SD</i> (mean difference): 0.89; <i>t</i>(42) = 0.266, <i>p</i> = 0.792, <i>d</i> = 0.04) and for the resistance group (<i>mean difference</i>:-0.07, <i>SD</i> (mean difference): 0.73; <i>t</i>(63) = -0.736, <i>p</i> = 0.464, <i>d</i> = 0.08). The regeneration group showed a significant decline in distress intolerance (<i>mean difference</i>: 0.29, <i>SD</i> (mean difference): 0.72; <i>t</i>(61) = 3.156, <i>p</i> = 0.002, <i>d</i> = 0.38).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the treatment of distress intolerance, it seems promising to focus on positive psychology interventions and resources. Limitations of the study are that it was conducted with psychosomatic inpatients only and that no follow-up data are available.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chronic Stress\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2470547018800484\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2470547018800484\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chronic Stress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547018800484\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chronic Stress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547018800484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
背景:承受痛苦是指在(慢性)压力源、困难、逆境和消极的内在状态以及心理痛苦的情况下追求目标的能力。相比之下,痛苦不耐受是精神疾病的跨诊断指标,也是应对生活、工作要求或一般压力问题的中介。缺乏有关干预策略的数据。本研究的目的是测试两种治疗方法的不同效果:“再生培养”与“阻力训练”。方法:某心身医院的住院患者被随机分配到抗阻训练组(n = 65),即积极应对需求和耐力,或再生培养组(n = 62),即康复,正念放纵和创造性活动。他们与一组接受常规治疗的患者(n = 43)进行比较,没有对痛苦不耐受进行特殊治疗,结果用“痛苦不耐受量表”进行测量。分析采用单因素和重复测量方差分析及配对t检验。结果:“再生”组在痛苦耐受方面有明显改善,而“常规治疗”组和“抵抗”组无明显变化。事后检验采用配对样本t检验对每组进行前后比较。常规治疗组无差异(平均差异0.03,SD(平均差异):0.89;t(42) = 0.266, p = 0.792, d = 0.04),耐药组(平均差值:-0.07,SD(平均差值):0.73;T (63) = -0.736, p = 0.464, d = 0.08)。再生组痛苦耐受能力显著下降(平均差0.29,SD(平均差):0.72;T (61) = 3.156, p = 0.002, d = 0.38)。结论:在痛苦不耐受的治疗中,关注积极心理学干预和资源似乎是有希望的。该研究的局限性在于仅对心身住院患者进行了研究,并且没有随访数据。
Reduction of Distress Intolerance With Salutotherapeutic Interventions: Results From a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Background: Distress tolerance is the ability to pursue one's goals in the presence of (chronic) stressors, hardship, adversities and negative internal states, and psychological distress. By contrast, distress intolerance is a transdiagnostic indicator of mental illness and a mediator in coping with problems in life, work demands, or stress in general. There is a lack of data regarding intervention strategies. The objective of the present study is to test the differential effects of two treatment approaches: "regeneration fostering" versus "resistance training."
Methods: Inpatients of a psychosomatic hospital were randomly allocated to either a resistance training group therapy (n = 65)-that is, active coping with demands and endurance-or a regeneration fostering group therapy (n = 62)-that is, recovery, mindful indulgence, and creative activities. They were compared with a group of patients who received treatment as usual (n = 43), without special treatments for distress intolerance, and the outcome was measured with the "Distress Intolerance Scale." One-way and repeated measure analyses of variance and paired t tests were used for the analysis.
Results: The "regeneration" group showed a significant improvement in distress intolerance, whereas there was no significant change for the treatment-as-usual group and in the "resistance" group. Post hoc tests were conducted with paired sample t tests for pre-post comparisons for each group. No differences were found for the treatment-as-usual group (mean difference: 0.03, SD (mean difference): 0.89; t(42) = 0.266, p = 0.792, d = 0.04) and for the resistance group (mean difference:-0.07, SD (mean difference): 0.73; t(63) = -0.736, p = 0.464, d = 0.08). The regeneration group showed a significant decline in distress intolerance (mean difference: 0.29, SD (mean difference): 0.72; t(61) = 3.156, p = 0.002, d = 0.38).
Conclusions: In the treatment of distress intolerance, it seems promising to focus on positive psychology interventions and resources. Limitations of the study are that it was conducted with psychosomatic inpatients only and that no follow-up data are available.