2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      SlowMo therapy, a new digital blended therapy for fear of harm from others: An account of therapy personalisation within a targeted intervention

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Objectives

          SlowMo therapy is a pioneering blended digital therapy for paranoia, augmenting face‐to‐face therapy with an interactive ‘webapp’ and a mobile app. A recent large‐scale trial demonstrated small–moderate effects on paranoia alongside improvements in self‐esteem, worry, well‐being and quality of life. This paper provides a comprehensive account of therapy personalisation within this targeted approach.

          Design

          Case examples illustrate therapy delivery and descriptive data are presented on personalised thought content.

          Method

          Thought content was extracted from the webapp ( n = 140 participants) and coded using newly devised categories: Worries: (1) Persecutory, (2) Negative social evaluation, (3) Negative self‐concept, (4) Loss/life stresses, (5) Sensory‐perceptual experiences and (6) Health anxieties. Safer thoughts: (1) Safer alternative (specific alternatives to worries), (2) Second‐wave (generalised) coping, (3) Positive self‐concept, (4) Positive activities and (5) Third‐wave (mindfulness‐based) coping. Data on therapy fidelity are also presented.

          Results

          Worries: ‘Persecutory’ (92.9% of people) and ‘Negative social evaluation’ (74.3%) were most common. ‘General worries/ life stresses’ (31.4%) and ‘Negative self‐concept’ (22.1%) were present in a significant minority; ‘Health anxieties’ (10%) and ‘Sensory‐perceptual’ (10%) were less common. Safer thoughts: ‘Second‐wave (general) coping’ (85%), ‘Safer alternatives’ (76.4%), ‘Positive self‐concept’ (65.7%) and ‘Positive activities’ (64.3%) were common with ‘Third‐wave’ (mindfulness) coping observed for 30%. Fidelity: Only three therapy withdrawals were therapy related. Session adherence was excellent (mean = 15.2/16; SD = 0.9). Behavioural work was conducted with 71% of people (119/168).

          Conclusion

          SlowMo therapy delivers a targeted yet personalised approach. Potential mechanisms of action extend beyond reasoning. Implications for cognitive models of paranoia and causal interventionist approaches are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

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

          The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

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

            Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious.

            M Epstein (1994)
            Cognitive-experiential self-theory integrates the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious by assuming the existence of two parallel, interacting modes of information processing: a rational system and an emotionally driven experiential system. Support for the theory is provided by the convergence of a wide variety of theoretical positions on two similar processing modes; by real-life phenomena--such as conflicts between the heart and the head; the appeal of concrete, imagistic, and narrative representations; superstitious thinking; and the ubiquity of religion throughout recorded history--and by laboratory research, including the prediction of new phenomena in heuristic reasoning.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.

              Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory. © The Author(s) 2013.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                thomas.ward@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Psychol Psychother
                Psychol Psychother
                10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8341
                PAPT
                Psychology and Psychotherapy
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1476-0835
                2044-8341
                12 January 2022
                June 2022
                : 95
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/papt.v95.2 )
                : 423-446
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Psychology Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience King’s College London London UK
                [ 2 ] South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust London UK
                [ 3 ] Department of Psychiatry Oxford University Oxford UK
                [ 4 ] Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust Oxford UK
                [ 5 ] Oxford Institute of Clinical Psychology Training and Research Oxford University Oxford UK
                [ 6 ] Mental Health Research and Treatment Center Faculty of Psychology Ruhr‐Universität Bochum Bochum Germany
                [ 7 ] Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust Worthing UK
                [ 8 ] School of Psychology University of Sussex Brighton UK
                [ 9 ] Department of Biostatistics and Health Informatics Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience King’s College London London UK
                [ 10 ] Division of Psychiatry University College London London UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Thomas Ward, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, PO77, HWB, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK.

                Email: thomas.ward@ 123456kcl.ac.uk

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7608-5755
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6044-6093
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2293-3875
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1218-675X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5637-1340
                Article
                PAPT12377
                10.1111/papt.12377
                9306634
                35019210
                85774576-1c17-4305-9af3-0bdf8aa01b36
                © 2021 The Authors. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The British Psychological Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 08 May 2021
                : 06 December 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 4, Pages: 24, Words: 10910
                Funding
                Funded by: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme , doi 10.13039/501100001922;
                Award ID: 15/48/21
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London (Garety and Emsley)
                Award ID: NIHR300051
                Award ID: NIHR‐RP‐2014–05–003
                Funded by: NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre
                Award ID: BRC‐1215–20005
                Funded by: NIHR Kent, Surrey and Sussex NIHR Applied Research Collaboration
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:22.07.2022

                blended therapy,causal interventionism,cognitive behavioural therapy,digital,human‐centred design,paranoia,psychosis,user‐centred design

                Comments

                Comment on this article