The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceived causal networks: Clinical utility evaluated by therapists and patients
Open accessAbstract
Conceptualizing psychiatric disorders as idiosyncratic networks of mutually reinforcing behaviors and emotions has a long history in the form of psychotherapy case conceptualizations created collaboratively by therapist and patient. However, such methods are typically unsystematic and biased by therapist assumptions. An alternative is Perceived Causal Networks (PECAN), a structured online questionnaire in which patients quantify causal relations between problematic behaviors and emotions, and responses are visualized in the form of a network. In the present study, PECAN was evaluated for clinical utility at the start of therapy for five patients screening positive for depression. As expected, the five networks were found to be highly idiosyncratic, with two revealing the expected maintaining feedback loops. Both therapists and patients evaluated the method as useful in the initial phase of a therapy treatment. Although PECAN shows promise as a clinical tool, findings suggest that the method could be improved by including contextual factors maintaining depression.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
A network theory of mental disorders
Borsboom, D. (2017) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20375 · Cited by 3,482
Comorbidity: a network perspective
Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09991567 · Cited by 1,575
Can network analysis transform psychopathology?
McNally, R. J. (2016) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.06.006 · Cited by 1,072
Sun, Y., Fu, Z., Bo, Q., Mao, Z., Ma, X., & Wang, C. (2020) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-020-02885-6 · Cited by 343
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Andreasson, M., Schenström, J., Bjureberg, J., & Klintwall, L.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- Region Stockholm (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Klintwall, Lars
- Venue
- Journal for Person-Oriented Research
- Publisher
- Journal for Person-Oriented Research
- Published
- 2023-06-17
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-41
- ISSN
- 2002-0244 (ISSN-L)
- 2003-0177
- PMC
- PMC10302660
- OpenAlex
- W4381250014
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 2.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal for Person-Oriented Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- Carya illinoinensis, depression, case formulation, causal networks, online surveys, network visualization, clinical utility
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