A randomized clinical trial comparing an acceptance-based behavior therapy to applied relaxation for generalized anxiety disorder.
A randomized clinical trial comparing an acceptance-based behavior therapy to applied relaxation for generalized anxiety disorder.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0032871
复制
发表时间：
2013-10
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Orsillo, Susan M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hayes-Skelton, Sarah A.;Roemer, Lizabeth;Orsillo, Susan M.
研究一种经验和理论推导的治疗方法，将基于正念和接受的策略与行为方法相结合，是否比经验支持的治疗方法能改善广泛性焦虑症的结果。本试验随机抽取了81名被诊断为广泛性焦虑症的患者（65.4%为女性，80.2%为白人，平均年龄32.92岁），接受16次基于接受的行为疗法（ABBT）或应用放松疗法（AR）。治疗前、治疗后和6个月随访的评估包括以下主要结果测量：广广性焦虑症临床医生严重程度评分、汉密尔顿焦虑评定量表结构化访谈指南、宾夕法尼亚州立大学焦虑问卷、抑郁焦虑压力量表和状态-特质焦虑量表。次要结果包括贝克抑郁量表- ii、生活质量量表和合并症诊断的数量。混合效应回归模型显示，时间对所有主要结果测量的影响都很大（d值为1.36至1.61），但对条件和条件X时间的影响不显著，影响很小（d值为0.002至0.24），表明两种治疗方法的患者在治疗期间都有比较大的改善。对于次要结局，时间影响显著（d值为0.74至1.38），但条件和条件X时间影响不显著（d值为0.11至0.31）。在随访期间没有出现显著差异（d值为0.02至0.16），表明获益得以维持。在治疗后和随访的5次变化计算中，ABBT患者的63.3 - 80.0%和AR患者的60.6 - 78.8%经历了临床显著的变化。ABBT是治疗广泛性焦虑症的可行选择。
To examine whether an empirically and theoretically derived treatment combining mindfulness- and acceptance-based strategies with behavioral approaches would improve outcomes in GAD over an empirically-supported treatment. This trial randomized 81 individuals (65.4% female, 80.2% identified as White, average age 32.92) diagnosed with GAD to receive 16 sessions of either an Acceptance Based Behavior Therapy (ABBT) or Applied Relaxation (AR). Assessments at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up included the following primary outcome measures: GAD Clinician Severity Rating, Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Secondary outcomes included the Beck Depression Inventory-II, Quality of Life Inventory, and number of comorbid diagnoses. Mixed Effect Regression Models showed significant large effects for Time for all primary outcome measures (d’s 1.36 to 1.61) but non-significant, small effects for Condition and Condition X Time (d’s 0.002 to 0.24), indicating clients in both treatments improved comparably over treatment. For secondary outcomes, Time was significant (d’s 0.74 to 1.38) but Condition and Condition X Time effects were not (d’s 0.11 to 0.31). No significant differences emerged over follow-up (d’s 0.02 to 0.16) indicating maintenance of gains. Between 63.3 and 80.0% of clients in ABBT and 60.6 and 78.8% of clients in AR experienced clinically significant change across 5 calculations of change at post-treatment and follow-up. ABBT is a viable alternative for treating GAD.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
10.3
作者：
Evans, Susan;Ferrando, Stephen;Haglin, Dean
通讯作者：
Haglin, Dean
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Arntz, A
通讯作者：
Arntz, A
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Dugas, Michel J.;Brillon, Pascale;Gervais, Nicole J.
通讯作者：
Gervais, Nicole J.
影响因子：
1.5
作者：
Blevins, Dean;Roca, J. Vince;Spencer, Trey
通讯作者：
Spencer, Trey
影响因子：
10.3
作者：
Covin, Roger;Ouimet, Allison J.;Dozois, David J. A.
通讯作者：
Dozois, David J. A.