Cited by 40Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Think Effectively About Mood Swings (TEAMS): A case series of cognitive–behavioural therapy for bipolar disorders

Searson, Ruth, Mansell, Warren, Lowens, Ian, Tai, Sara·2012·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

Background and objectives An integrative cognitive model for bipolar disorder proposes that multiple and extreme appraisals of changes in internal state and their reciprocal impact on behaviour, physiology and the environment provide the core mechanism in maintaining and escalating bipolar symptoms (Mansell, Morrison, Reid, Lowens, & Tai, 2007a). Methods A case series of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) based on this model, known as the TEAMS approach (Think Effectively About Mood Swings), with seven participants was conducted. An A-B direct replication design with multiple baseline and follow-up assessments at one, three and six months was used. Treatment involved 12 sessions of CBT with an emphasis on addressing extreme positive and negative appraisals of internal state change. Results Improvements were reported for symptoms, functioning, cognitions and self-critical processes with large effect sizes on a range of measures, especially depression, at end of therapy and one-month follow-up. Five participants also showed clinically significant change in depression at both time-points. Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence for the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of CBT based on this model which warrants further evaluation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.10.001

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Searson, R., Mansell, W., Lowens, I., & Tai, S.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Mansell, Warren
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
770-779
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2080419141
Cited by
40
References
10
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Manchester
  • ESRC Emotion Regulation of Others and the Self Network Grant (RES 060-25-0044)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
bipolar disorder, cognitive behavioral therapy, mood swings, depression, self-criticism, treatment efficacy, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review