恐惧症患者的量身定制和标准化治疗

Dietmar Schulte, Rainer Künzel, Georg Pepping, Thomas Schulte-Bahrenberg
{"title":"恐惧症患者的量身定制和标准化治疗","authors":"Dietmar Schulte,&nbsp;Rainer Künzel,&nbsp;Georg Pepping,&nbsp;Thomas Schulte-Bahrenberg","doi":"10.1016/0146-6402(92)90001-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The Bochum anxiety-therapy study examined the question as to whether adaptation of treatment to an individual case, typical for clinical practice but untypical for research projects, will lead to better treatment outcome. 120 phobic patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: an experimental group with individual treatment planned by the therapist, a control group with standardized therapy (exposure <em>in vivo</em>), and a yoked control group. Contrary to expectations, the standardized group proved to be most successful. This holds true for experienced and inexperienced therapists and for patients with different phobias and panic disorders of various severities. The superiority of the standardized group proved to be the result of the method “<em>exposure in vivo</em>”. The factor “adaptation” was of no relevance. The results support the assumption that too much flexibility and too much adaptation can be disadvantageous, at least for the treatment of phobic patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100041,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 67-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0146-6402(92)90001-5","citationCount":"206","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tailor-made versus standardized therapy of phobic patients\",\"authors\":\"Dietmar Schulte,&nbsp;Rainer Künzel,&nbsp;Georg Pepping,&nbsp;Thomas Schulte-Bahrenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0146-6402(92)90001-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The Bochum anxiety-therapy study examined the question as to whether adaptation of treatment to an individual case, typical for clinical practice but untypical for research projects, will lead to better treatment outcome. 120 phobic patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: an experimental group with individual treatment planned by the therapist, a control group with standardized therapy (exposure <em>in vivo</em>), and a yoked control group. Contrary to expectations, the standardized group proved to be most successful. This holds true for experienced and inexperienced therapists and for patients with different phobias and panic disorders of various severities. The superiority of the standardized group proved to be the result of the method “<em>exposure in vivo</em>”. The factor “adaptation” was of no relevance. The results support the assumption that too much flexibility and too much adaptation can be disadvantageous, at least for the treatment of phobic patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy\",\"volume\":\"14 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 67-92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1992-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0146-6402(92)90001-5\",\"citationCount\":\"206\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146640292900015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146640292900015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 206

摘要

波鸿焦虑治疗研究考察了这样一个问题,即对临床实践中典型但研究项目中不典型的个例进行适应性治疗是否会带来更好的治疗效果。120名恐惧症患者被随机分配到三个治疗组之一:实验组接受治疗师计划的个体治疗,对照组接受标准化治疗(体内暴露),对照组接受联合治疗。与预期相反,标准化组被证明是最成功的。这适用于有经验和没有经验的治疗师,也适用于不同程度的恐惧症和恐慌症患者。标准化组的优势被证明是“体内暴露”方法的结果。“适应”这个因素与此无关。研究结果支持了一个假设,即过度的灵活性和适应性可能是不利的,至少对治疗恐惧症患者来说是这样。
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
Tailor-made versus standardized therapy of phobic patients

The Bochum anxiety-therapy study examined the question as to whether adaptation of treatment to an individual case, typical for clinical practice but untypical for research projects, will lead to better treatment outcome. 120 phobic patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: an experimental group with individual treatment planned by the therapist, a control group with standardized therapy (exposure in vivo), and a yoked control group. Contrary to expectations, the standardized group proved to be most successful. This holds true for experienced and inexperienced therapists and for patients with different phobias and panic disorders of various severities. The superiority of the standardized group proved to be the result of the method “exposure in vivo”. The factor “adaptation” was of no relevance. The results support the assumption that too much flexibility and too much adaptation can be disadvantageous, at least for the treatment of phobic patients.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cancer, personality and stress: Prediction and prevention Adolescent family predictors of substance use during early adulthood: A theoretical model Fears in mental retardation: Part one—Types of fears reported by men and women with and without mental retardation UCS-inflation and acquired fear responses in human conditioning Behavioral treatment of obesity: thirty years and counting
×
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