教育与规范化方法对妄想患者治疗动机的影响:一项模拟患者的实验研究。

IF 3.6 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Schizophrenia Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2013-01-01 Epub Date: 2013-10-23 DOI:10.1155/2013/261587
Eva Lüllmann, Tania M Lincoln
{"title":"教育与规范化方法对妄想患者治疗动机的影响:一项模拟患者的实验研究。","authors":"Eva Lüllmann,&nbsp;Tania M Lincoln","doi":"10.1155/2013/261587","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Until recently a widespread recommendation for clinicians was not to respond to the content of patients' delusions but to stress at an early time point that the patient has a mental illness (educating approach). An opposed recommendation is to validate the patients' symptoms and normalize them (normalizing approach). This study used an experimental design to compare the impact of these two approaches on treatment motivation (TM). A cover story about a person who develops persecutory delusions was used to guide a sample of 81 healthy participants who served as analogue patients into imagining experiencing delusions. This was followed by a random assignment to either an educating or a normalizing consultation with a fictive clinician. Consultations only differed in content. Finally, we assessed the participants' motivation to accept medication (Medication TM), psychological treatment (Psychological TM), and treatment offered by this particular clinician independent of the kind of treatment (Clinician-related TM). Participants in the normalizing condition showed higher Clinician-related and Psychological TM than those in the educating condition. Medication TM was unaffected by condition. Following our results using a normalizing approach seems to be advisable in a first-contact situation with patients with delusions and favourable to a simple educating approach. </p>","PeriodicalId":45388,"journal":{"name":"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment","volume":"2013 ","pages":"261587"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/261587","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effect of an Educating versus Normalizing Approach on Treatment Motivation in Patients Presenting with Delusions: An Experimental Investigation with Analogue Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Eva Lüllmann,&nbsp;Tania M Lincoln\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2013/261587\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Until recently a widespread recommendation for clinicians was not to respond to the content of patients' delusions but to stress at an early time point that the patient has a mental illness (educating approach). An opposed recommendation is to validate the patients' symptoms and normalize them (normalizing approach). This study used an experimental design to compare the impact of these two approaches on treatment motivation (TM). A cover story about a person who develops persecutory delusions was used to guide a sample of 81 healthy participants who served as analogue patients into imagining experiencing delusions. This was followed by a random assignment to either an educating or a normalizing consultation with a fictive clinician. Consultations only differed in content. Finally, we assessed the participants' motivation to accept medication (Medication TM), psychological treatment (Psychological TM), and treatment offered by this particular clinician independent of the kind of treatment (Clinician-related TM). Participants in the normalizing condition showed higher Clinician-related and Psychological TM than those in the educating condition. Medication TM was unaffected by condition. Following our results using a normalizing approach seems to be advisable in a first-contact situation with patients with delusions and favourable to a simple educating approach. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment\",\"volume\":\"2013 \",\"pages\":\"261587\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2013/261587\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/261587\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schizophrenia Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/261587","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

直到最近,对临床医生的广泛建议是,不要对患者妄想的内容作出反应,而是在早期强调患者患有精神疾病(教育方法)。相反的建议是确认患者的症状并使其正常化(正常化方法)。本研究采用实验设计比较这两种方法对治疗动机(TM)的影响。一个关于一个患有受迫害妄想症的人的封面故事被用来引导81名健康的参与者,他们作为模拟病人,想象自己正在经历妄想。随后是随机分配到一个有效的临床医生进行教育或正常咨询。磋商只是在内容上有所不同。最后,我们评估了参与者接受药物治疗(medication TM)、心理治疗(psychological TM)的动机,以及该特定临床医生提供的独立于治疗类型的治疗(与临床医生相关的TM)。规范化组的临床相关TM和心理TM均高于教育组。用药TM不受病情影响。根据我们的结果,在与妄想患者的首次接触情况下,使用正常化方法似乎是可取的,并且有利于简单的教育方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The Effect of an Educating versus Normalizing Approach on Treatment Motivation in Patients Presenting with Delusions: An Experimental Investigation with Analogue Patients.

Until recently a widespread recommendation for clinicians was not to respond to the content of patients' delusions but to stress at an early time point that the patient has a mental illness (educating approach). An opposed recommendation is to validate the patients' symptoms and normalize them (normalizing approach). This study used an experimental design to compare the impact of these two approaches on treatment motivation (TM). A cover story about a person who develops persecutory delusions was used to guide a sample of 81 healthy participants who served as analogue patients into imagining experiencing delusions. This was followed by a random assignment to either an educating or a normalizing consultation with a fictive clinician. Consultations only differed in content. Finally, we assessed the participants' motivation to accept medication (Medication TM), psychological treatment (Psychological TM), and treatment offered by this particular clinician independent of the kind of treatment (Clinician-related TM). Participants in the normalizing condition showed higher Clinician-related and Psychological TM than those in the educating condition. Medication TM was unaffected by condition. Following our results using a normalizing approach seems to be advisable in a first-contact situation with patients with delusions and favourable to a simple educating approach.

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
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Schizophrenia Research and Treatment is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to all aspects of schizophrenia.
期刊最新文献
Adherence to Typical Antipsychotics among Patients with Schizophrenia in Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Study. Investigating Body Mass Index and Body Composition in Patients with Schizophrenia: A Case-Control Study Cigarette Smoking and Schizophrenia: Etiology, Clinical, Pharmacological, and Treatment Implications. Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotic Monotherapy and Combination of Long-Acting Injectable and Oral Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia. Homocysteine in Schizophrenia: Independent Pathogenetic Factor with Prooxidant Activity or Integral Marker of Other Biochemical Disturbances?
×
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