Cited by 67Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Transdiagnostic Treatment Personalization: The Feasibility of Ordering Unified Protocol Modules According to Patient Strengths and Weaknesses

Sauer-Zavala, Shannon, Cassiello-Robbins, Clair, Ametaj, Amantia A., Wilner, Julianne G., Pagan, Danyelle·2019·Behavior Modification

Abstract

Most patients in community practice attend significantly fewer sessions than are recommended by treatment protocols that have demonstrated efficacy in addressing emotional disorders. Personalized interventions that target the core processes thought to maintain a wide range of disorders may serve to increase treatment efficiency, addressing this gap. This study sought to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the personalized delivery of a mechanistically transdiagnostic intervention, the Unified Protocol (UP) for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders. Using an AB phase change design in accordance with the single-case reporting guideline for behavioral interventions (SCRIBE), 18 individuals with heterogeneous emotional disorders were randomly assigned to receive UP treatment modules ordered according to either their pretreatment strengths or weaknesses. Results support the feasibility of reordering the treatment modules as the majority of patients presented with marked differences in skill levels, as well as the acceptability of this approach as patients in both conditions reported satisfaction with their assigned treatment order. Furthermore, the majority of patients demonstrated symptom improvement consistent with previously reported effects of the standard-order UP. Finally, there is preliminary evidence to suggest that those in the strengths condition displayed improvements in outcomes earlier in treatment than those in the weaknesses condition. Taken together, these findings offer preliminary support for improving treatment efficiency through the utilization of a personalized, strengths-based, transdiagnostic approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0145445518774914

Cites

52 of 52 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
Sauer-Zavala, S., Cassiello-Robbins, C., Ametaj, A. A., Wilner, J. G., & Pagan, D.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Sauer-Zavala, Shannon
Venue
Behavior Modification
Published
2018-05-10
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
518-543
ISSN
  • 0145-4455 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-4167
OpenAlex
W2802949001
Cited by
67
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
8.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavior Modification (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
transdiagnostic treatment, Unified Protocol, personalized treatment, strengths-based intervention, emotional disorders, treatment efficiency, treatment order, treatment acceptability, feasibility, single-case experimental design, community mental health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Clinical Protocols, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Patient Satisfaction, Young Adult, Precision Medicine

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