控制有什么用?强迫症患者控制信念的系统回顾

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102372
Andrea Sandstrom, Sandra Krause, Catherine Ouellet-Courtois, Kenneth Kelly-Turner, Adam S. Radomsky
{"title":"控制有什么用?强迫症患者控制信念的系统回顾","authors":"Andrea Sandstrom,&nbsp;Sandra Krause,&nbsp;Catherine Ouellet-Courtois,&nbsp;Kenneth Kelly-Turner,&nbsp;Adam S. Radomsky","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Current conceptualizations of control-related beliefs in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) have largely been limited to beliefs about the need to control thoughts. Although growing evidence supports the notion of considering broader control-related constructs in this disorder, there has been limited research aimed at integrating findings across studies, making it difficult to determine how different control-related beliefs may influence OCD symptoms. The current review sought to systematically analyze findings from all studies investigating the relationship between control beliefs and OCD. The systematic search identified 157 eligible articles that assessed the relationship between control beliefs and OCD symptoms. Results suggested that certain control beliefs (e.g., importance of/need to control of thoughts, sense of control, beliefs about losing control) may be more closely associated with OCD than others (e.g., </span>locus of control<span>, and desire for control). In general, control beliefs were positively associated with OCD, with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending on the symptom domain. Based on limited studies, the only control belief which demonstrated specificity to OCD was ICT. Findings support the importance of integrating additional control beliefs in conceptualizations of OCD and provide evidence to support the benefits of targeting these beliefs in cognitive behavioural therapy.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"107 ","pages":"Article 102372"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What's control got to do with it? A systematic review of control beliefs in obsessive-compulsive disorder\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Sandstrom,&nbsp;Sandra Krause,&nbsp;Catherine Ouellet-Courtois,&nbsp;Kenneth Kelly-Turner,&nbsp;Adam S. Radomsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102372\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Current conceptualizations of control-related beliefs in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) have largely been limited to beliefs about the need to control thoughts. Although growing evidence supports the notion of considering broader control-related constructs in this disorder, there has been limited research aimed at integrating findings across studies, making it difficult to determine how different control-related beliefs may influence OCD symptoms. The current review sought to systematically analyze findings from all studies investigating the relationship between control beliefs and OCD. The systematic search identified 157 eligible articles that assessed the relationship between control beliefs and OCD symptoms. Results suggested that certain control beliefs (e.g., importance of/need to control of thoughts, sense of control, beliefs about losing control) may be more closely associated with OCD than others (e.g., </span>locus of control<span>, and desire for control). In general, control beliefs were positively associated with OCD, with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending on the symptom domain. Based on limited studies, the only control belief which demonstrated specificity to OCD was ICT. Findings support the importance of integrating additional control beliefs in conceptualizations of OCD and provide evidence to support the benefits of targeting these beliefs in cognitive behavioural therapy.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"107 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102372\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001307\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001307","RegionNum":1,"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

目前关于强迫症(OCD)中控制相关信念的概念大多局限于需要控制思想的信念。尽管越来越多的证据支持在这种障碍中考虑更广泛的控制相关概念,但旨在整合不同研究结果的研究却很有限,因此很难确定不同的控制相关信念会如何影响强迫症症状。本次综述试图系统分析所有调查控制信念与强迫症之间关系的研究结果。系统性检索发现了 157 篇符合条件的评估控制信念与强迫症症状之间关系的文章。结果表明,某些控制信念(如控制思想的重要性/必要性、控制感、失去控制的信念)与强迫症的关系可能比其他信念(如控制定位和控制欲望)更为密切。一般来说,控制信念与强迫症呈正相关,效果大小因症状领域而异,从大到小不等。根据有限的研究,唯一与强迫症有特异性的控制信念是信息和通信技术。研究结果表明,在强迫症的概念中纳入额外的控制信念非常重要,并提供证据支持在认知行为疗法中针对这些信念进行治疗的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What's control got to do with it? A systematic review of control beliefs in obsessive-compulsive disorder

Current conceptualizations of control-related beliefs in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) have largely been limited to beliefs about the need to control thoughts. Although growing evidence supports the notion of considering broader control-related constructs in this disorder, there has been limited research aimed at integrating findings across studies, making it difficult to determine how different control-related beliefs may influence OCD symptoms. The current review sought to systematically analyze findings from all studies investigating the relationship between control beliefs and OCD. The systematic search identified 157 eligible articles that assessed the relationship between control beliefs and OCD symptoms. Results suggested that certain control beliefs (e.g., importance of/need to control of thoughts, sense of control, beliefs about losing control) may be more closely associated with OCD than others (e.g., locus of control, and desire for control). In general, control beliefs were positively associated with OCD, with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending on the symptom domain. Based on limited studies, the only control belief which demonstrated specificity to OCD was ICT. Findings support the importance of integrating additional control beliefs in conceptualizations of OCD and provide evidence to support the benefits of targeting these beliefs in cognitive behavioural therapy.

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
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1