{"title":"确定谁从抑郁症心理治疗中的支持与表达技术中获益最多:个体内部与个体之间效应的调节因子。","authors":"Sigal Zilcha-Mano, Christian A Webb","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety exhibited better treatment outcomes in supportive-expressive therapy (SET) relative to supportive therapy (ST). But to gain insight into within-patient therapeutic changes, a within-individual design is required. The present study contrasts previous findings based on theory-driven between-patient moderators with data-driven moderators of within-patient processes to investigate whether findings converge or diverge across these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used data of 118 patients from the pilot and active phases of a recent RCT for patients with major depressive disorder, comparing ST with SET, a time-limited psychodynamic therapy. The predefined primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Supportive versus expressive techniques were rated based on patients' end-of-session perspective. We compared previous findings based on moderators of between-patient effects with a data-driven approach for identifying moderators of within-patient effects of techniques on subsequent outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After false discovery rate corrections, of 10 preselected moderators, patients' attachment anxiety and domineering style remained significant. Of these, bootstrap resampling revealed significant differences between ST and SET techniques for the attachment anxiety moderator: Those with higher attachment anxiety benefited more from greater use of ST than SET techniques in a particular session, as evidenced by lower levels of symptoms at the subsequent session.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our within-individual findings diverge from previously published between-individual analyses. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the importance of complementing between-individuals with within-individual analyses to achieve better understanding of who benefits most from specific treatment techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":" ","pages":"187-197"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922855/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying who benefits most from supportive versus expressive techniques in psychotherapy for depression: Moderators of within- versus between-individual effects.\",\"authors\":\"Sigal Zilcha-Mano, Christian A Webb\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/ccp0000868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety exhibited better treatment outcomes in supportive-expressive therapy (SET) relative to supportive therapy (ST). But to gain insight into within-patient therapeutic changes, a within-individual design is required. The present study contrasts previous findings based on theory-driven between-patient moderators with data-driven moderators of within-patient processes to investigate whether findings converge or diverge across these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We used data of 118 patients from the pilot and active phases of a recent RCT for patients with major depressive disorder, comparing ST with SET, a time-limited psychodynamic therapy. The predefined primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Supportive versus expressive techniques were rated based on patients' end-of-session perspective. We compared previous findings based on moderators of between-patient effects with a data-driven approach for identifying moderators of within-patient effects of techniques on subsequent outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After false discovery rate corrections, of 10 preselected moderators, patients' attachment anxiety and domineering style remained significant. Of these, bootstrap resampling revealed significant differences between ST and SET techniques for the attachment anxiety moderator: Those with higher attachment anxiety benefited more from greater use of ST than SET techniques in a particular session, as evidenced by lower levels of symptoms at the subsequent session.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our within-individual findings diverge from previously published between-individual analyses. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the importance of complementing between-individuals with within-individual analyses to achieve better understanding of who benefits most from specific treatment techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"187-197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10922855/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000868\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/12/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000868","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying who benefits most from supportive versus expressive techniques in psychotherapy for depression: Moderators of within- versus between-individual effects.
Objective: A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicated that individuals with higher levels of attachment anxiety exhibited better treatment outcomes in supportive-expressive therapy (SET) relative to supportive therapy (ST). But to gain insight into within-patient therapeutic changes, a within-individual design is required. The present study contrasts previous findings based on theory-driven between-patient moderators with data-driven moderators of within-patient processes to investigate whether findings converge or diverge across these two approaches.
Method: We used data of 118 patients from the pilot and active phases of a recent RCT for patients with major depressive disorder, comparing ST with SET, a time-limited psychodynamic therapy. The predefined primary outcome measure was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Supportive versus expressive techniques were rated based on patients' end-of-session perspective. We compared previous findings based on moderators of between-patient effects with a data-driven approach for identifying moderators of within-patient effects of techniques on subsequent outcome.
Results: After false discovery rate corrections, of 10 preselected moderators, patients' attachment anxiety and domineering style remained significant. Of these, bootstrap resampling revealed significant differences between ST and SET techniques for the attachment anxiety moderator: Those with higher attachment anxiety benefited more from greater use of ST than SET techniques in a particular session, as evidenced by lower levels of symptoms at the subsequent session.
Conclusions: Our within-individual findings diverge from previously published between-individual analyses. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the importance of complementing between-individuals with within-individual analyses to achieve better understanding of who benefits most from specific treatment techniques. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.