Cited by 6Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Policy Implementation Science

The adherence/resource priming paradigm – a randomised clinical trial conducting a bonafide psychotherapy protocol for generalised anxiety disorder

Open access
Flückiger, Christoph·2014·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bonafide psychotherapy is an effective treatment for generalised anxiety disorder compared to no-treatment. Rather than creating increasing numbers of new overall treatment-packets within a medical meta-model, an additional approach to investigating clinical research designs may be to increase the understanding of already effective psychotherapies. Treatment manuals and protocols allow a relatively high degree of freedom for the way therapists implement the overall treatment manuals. There is a systematic lack of knowledge on how therapists should customise these overall protocols. The present study experimentally examines three ways of conducting a bonafide psychotherapy based on a 15 session time-limited cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) protocol and their relation to the therapists' protocol adherence and treatment efficacy. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial will investigate three different methods of customising a bonafide CBT-protocol using dyadic peer-tutoring methodology (primings). The individuals with GAD will be randomly assigned to one of three priming conditions (resource priming, supportive resource priming, or adherence priming). The participant treatment allocation will be performed randomly. Therapists will be assigned to a peer-tutoring partner and priming condition based on a mutual agreement. Treatment outcomes will be assessed at the following times: observer based in-session outcomes, session-by-session post-session outcomes, treatment outcome at post assessment and treatment outcome at 6-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: The proposed trial addresses the clinically relevant question of how to customise a bonafide psychotherapy protocol using tandem peer-tutoring methodology (three priming conditions). Through the development and testing of the proposed priming procedures, this study describes levels of adherence and how to conduct an overall treatment protocol in a more systematised way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: From ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02039193.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-244x-14-49

Cites

89 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Power analyses with G*Power for detection of small effects (Cohen's f = 0.12) for interaction between time and treatment condition resulted in a sample size of 123 patients.

    “Power analyses with G*Power (Faul et al. 2007) for the detection of small effects (Cohen’s f = 0.12) for the interaction between time (pre, mid-5, mid-15, post) and treatment condition (TAU-M versus TAU-PMR versus TAU) (ANOVA repeated measures, within-between-interaction, α = 0.05, power = 0.80, number of groups = 3, number of measurements = 4, pre-post correlation r = 0.05, nonsphericity correc”

    From The process-outcome mindfulness effects in trainees (PrOMET) study: Protocol of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (2015) · cites this paper as Flückiger 2014

    The Methods/design ‘Sample size’ section reports a G*Power calculation yielding 60 participants, or 20 per priming condition, using a repeated-assessment correlation of r = .30—not 123 patients. The Methods/design section also describes different treatment conditions from those in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This is a typical limitation of most psychotherapy studies with a randomization process.

    “this is a typical limitation of most psychotherapy studies with a randomization process (Flückiger 2014).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hautzinger M Keller F Kühner C BDI-II. Beck-Depressions-Inventor Revision 2009 Pearson Assessment: Frankfurt, Germany
  2. Horowitz LM Strauß B Kordy H Das Inventar zur Erfassung interpersonaler Probleme (IIP-64-D) [Inventory of interpersonal problems, German version] 2000 Beltz: Weinheim, Germany 10593141
  3. Castonguay LG Goldfried MR Wiser S Raue PJ Hayes AM Predicting outcome in cognitive therapy for depression: a comparison of unique and common factors J Consult Clin Psychol 1996 64 497 504 8698942

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flückiger, C.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Flückiger, Christoph
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2014-02-20
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
49-49
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2081070135
Cited by
6
References
91
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (136937, PZ00P1_136937/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, treatment protocol adherence, peer tutoring, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Clinical Protocols, Humans, Research Design, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome

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