Cited by 16Mental Health Research TopicsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

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 access
Andreasson, M, Schenström, J, Bjureberg, Johan, Klintwall, Lars·2023·Journal for Person-Oriented Research

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17505/jpor.2023.25260

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

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
Published
2023-06-17
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
29-41
ISSN
  • 2002-0244 (ISSN-L)
  • 2003-0177
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
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