9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Optimizing exposure-based CBT for anxiety disorders via enhanced extinction: Design and methods of a multicentre randomized clinical trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Exposure‐based psychological interventions currently represent the empirically best established first line form of cognitive‐behavioural therapy for all types of anxiety disorders. Although shown to be highly effective in both randomized clinical and other studies, there are important deficits: (1) the core mechanisms of action are still under debate, (2) it is not known whether such treatments work equally well in all forms of anxiety disorders, including comorbid diagnoses like depression, (3) it is not known whether an intensified treatment with more frequent sessions in a shorter period of time provides better outcome than distributed sessions over longer time intervals. This paper reports the methods and design of a large‐scale multicentre randomized clinical trial (RCT) involving up to 700 patients designed to answer these questions. Based on substantial advances in basic research we regard extinction as the putative core candidate model to explain the mechanism of action of exposure‐based treatments. The RCT is flanked by four add‐on projects that apply experimental neurophysiological and psychophysiological, (epi)genetic and ecological momentary assessment methods to examine extinction and its potential moderators. Beyond the focus on extinction we also involve stakeholders and routine psychotherapists in preparation for more effective dissemination into clinical practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

          Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.

            In recent studies of the structure of affect, positive and negative affect have consistently emerged as two dominant and relatively independent dimensions. A number of mood scales have been created to measure these factors; however, many existing measures are inadequate, showing low reliability or poor convergent or discriminant validity. To fill the need for reliable and valid Positive Affect and Negative Affect scales that are also brief and easy to administer, we developed two 10-item mood scales that comprise the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The scales are shown to be highly internally consistent, largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period. Normative data and factorial and external evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scales are also presented.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
                Int J Methods Psychiatr Res
                Wiley
                10498931
                June 2017
                June 2017
                March 21 2017
                : 26
                : 2
                : e1560
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy; Technische Universität Dresden; Dresden Germany
                [2 ]Department of Psychology; Universität Greifswald; Greifswald Germany
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Charité Mitte; Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin; Berlin Germany
                [4 ]Center of Mental Health, Department of Biological Psychology, Clinical Psychology, and Psychotherapy; Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg; Würzburg Germany
                [5 ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy; Universitätsklinikum Münster; Münster Germany
                [6 ]Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy; Philipps-Universität Marburg; Marburg Germany
                [7 ]Mental Health Research and Treatment Center; Ruhr-Universität Bochum; Bochum Germany
                [8 ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy; Philipps-Universität Marburg; Marburg Germany
                [9 ]Center of Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy; University Hospital of Würzburg; Würzburg Germany
                [10 ]Department of Psychiatry; Universitätsklinikum Freiburg; Freiburg Germany
                [11 ]Department of Psychology; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Berlin Germany
                [12 ]Protect-AD Study Site Cologne; Cologne Germany
                Article
                10.1002/mpr.1560
                6877126
                28322476
                0b0de54b-1ca6-46e6-a59f-18213a1ce548
                © 2017

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,527

                Cited by18

                Most referenced authors1,019