开放组与封闭组形式的精神治疗住院抑郁症治疗。

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Ursula Melicherova, Tobias Schott, Malwina Brucker, Jürgen Hoyer, Volker Köllner
{"title":"开放组与封闭组形式的精神治疗住院抑郁症治疗。","authors":"Ursula Melicherova, Tobias Schott, Malwina Brucker, Jürgen Hoyer, Volker Köllner","doi":"10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Controversy exists about the comparative efficacy of different group formats, e. g., open versus closed. Most of the findings come from outpatient, closed group research. In practice, the open format is more widely used. This monocentric study aims to compare the efficacy as well as group cohesion during inpatient group psychotherapy for depression delivered in an open versus closed format.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>291 depressed inpatients (ageM= 55.7, SD = 11) of a psychosomatic-rehabilitation clinic were consecutively assigned to either open (n = 117) or closed (n = 174) cognitive-behavioral groups, further subdivided into groups based on length of the stay. Using multilevel models, we examined depression and group cohesion concerning changes in patients' random effects over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both group formats showed a reduction in symptomatology (d = 1.8). A significant group format x time interaction in favor of the closed format was found regarding group cohesion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While group cohesion improved in the closed format only, we did not find any significant difference between group formats regarding their efficacy. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials comparing both formats directly.</p>","PeriodicalId":51217,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie","volume":" ","pages":"6-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Originalbeiträge (Originals). Psychotherapeutic inpatient depression treatment in open versus closed group format.\",\"authors\":\"Ursula Melicherova, Tobias Schott, Malwina Brucker, Jürgen Hoyer, Volker Köllner\",\"doi\":\"10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Controversy exists about the comparative efficacy of different group formats, e. g., open versus closed. Most of the findings come from outpatient, closed group research. In practice, the open format is more widely used. This monocentric study aims to compare the efficacy as well as group cohesion during inpatient group psychotherapy for depression delivered in an open versus closed format.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>291 depressed inpatients (ageM= 55.7, SD = 11) of a psychosomatic-rehabilitation clinic were consecutively assigned to either open (n = 117) or closed (n = 174) cognitive-behavioral groups, further subdivided into groups based on length of the stay. Using multilevel models, we examined depression and group cohesion concerning changes in patients' random effects over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both group formats showed a reduction in symptomatology (d = 1.8). A significant group format x time interaction in favor of the closed format was found regarding group cohesion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While group cohesion improved in the closed format only, we did not find any significant difference between group formats regarding their efficacy. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials comparing both formats directly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"6-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:关于不同分组形式(如开放式和封闭式)的比较疗效存在争议。大多数研究结果来自门诊、封闭小组研究。在实践中,开放格式得到了更广泛的应用。这项单中心研究旨在比较以开放式和封闭式形式进行的抑郁症住院群体心理治疗的疗效和群体凝聚力。方法:将291名心身康复门诊的抑郁症住院患者(年龄M=55.7,SD=11)连续分为开放式(n=117)或封闭式(n=174)认知行为组,并根据住院时间进一步细分为组。使用多水平模型,我们研究了抑郁症和群体凝聚力,这些因素与患者随机效应随时间的变化有关。结果:两种小组形式的症状都有所减少(d=1.8)。在小组凝聚力方面,发现有利于封闭形式的显著的小组形式x时间互动。结论:虽然小组凝聚力仅在封闭形式中得到改善,但我们没有发现小组形式之间在疗效方面有任何显著差异。进一步的研究应该集中在直接比较两种形式的随机对照试验上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Originalbeiträge (Originals). Psychotherapeutic inpatient depression treatment in open versus closed group format.

Objective: Controversy exists about the comparative efficacy of different group formats, e. g., open versus closed. Most of the findings come from outpatient, closed group research. In practice, the open format is more widely used. This monocentric study aims to compare the efficacy as well as group cohesion during inpatient group psychotherapy for depression delivered in an open versus closed format.

Methods: 291 depressed inpatients (ageM= 55.7, SD = 11) of a psychosomatic-rehabilitation clinic were consecutively assigned to either open (n = 117) or closed (n = 174) cognitive-behavioral groups, further subdivided into groups based on length of the stay. Using multilevel models, we examined depression and group cohesion concerning changes in patients' random effects over time.

Results: Both group formats showed a reduction in symptomatology (d = 1.8). A significant group format x time interaction in favor of the closed format was found regarding group cohesion.

Conclusion: While group cohesion improved in the closed format only, we did not find any significant difference between group formats regarding their efficacy. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials comparing both formats directly.

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
1.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal provides a systematic overview of the entire field of psychosomatic medicine. It is also the official organ of the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy (DGPM). It serves as a forum for discussions of the interdisciplinary experiences in the field of psychosomatics, the goal being the furtherance of scientific insights into the interactions between mental and physical factors in the development of disease. It also provides a way to deepen one´s knowledge of psychoanalysis and to explore new therapeutic directions.
×
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