Psychology and psychotherapy · 2013
Analytic versus systemic group therapy for women with a history of child sexual abuse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Elkjaer Henriette, Kristensen Ellids, Mortensen Erik L, Poulsen Stig, Lau Marianne
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This randomized prospective study examines durability of improvement in general symptomatology, psychosocial functioning and interpersonal problems, and compares the long-term efficacy of analytic and systemic group psychotherapy in women 1 year after completion of treatment for childhood sexual abuse.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Women (n = 106) randomly assigned to analytic or systemic psychotherapy completed the Symptom Checklist-90-R, Global Assessment of Functioning, Global Life Quality, Registration Chart Questionnaire, and Flashback Registration at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at a 1-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Post-treatment gains were significant for both treatment modalities on all measures, but significantly larger after systemic therapy. Significant treatment response was maintained 1-year post-treatment, but different trajectories were observed: 1 year after treatment completion, improvements for analytic therapy were maintained, whereas they decreased after systemic therapy, resulting in no statistically significant difference in gains between the groups at the 1-year follow-up. Despite maintaining significant gains, more than half of the patients remained above cut-off for caseness concerning general symptomatology at post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The findings stress the importance of long-term follow-up data in effect studies. Different trajectories were associated with the two treatments, but improvement in the two treatment groups did not differ significantly at the 1-year follow-up. Implications of the difference in trajectories for treatment planning are discussed.
PRACTITIONER POINTS: Both analytic and systemic group therapy proved efficient in improving general symptomatology, psychosocial functioning, and interpersonal problems in women with a history of CSA and gains were maintained at a 1-year follow-up. Despite maintaining statistically significant gains at the 1-year follow-up, 54% of the patients remained above the cut-off for caseness with respect to general symptomatology, which may indicate a need for further treatment. Different pre-post follow-up treatment trajectories were observed between the two treatment modalities. Thus, while systemic group therapy showed a significantly better outcome immediately after termination, gains in the systemic treatment group decreased during follow-up, while gains were maintained during follow-up in analytic group therapy.
DESIGN AND METHODS: Women (n = 106) randomly assigned to analytic or systemic psychotherapy completed the Symptom Checklist-90-R, Global Assessment of Functioning, Global Life Quality, Registration Chart Questionnaire, and Flashback Registration at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and at a 1-year follow-up.
RESULTS: Post-treatment gains were significant for both treatment modalities on all measures, but significantly larger after systemic therapy. Significant treatment response was maintained 1-year post-treatment, but different trajectories were observed: 1 year after treatment completion, improvements for analytic therapy were maintained, whereas they decreased after systemic therapy, resulting in no statistically significant difference in gains between the groups at the 1-year follow-up. Despite maintaining significant gains, more than half of the patients remained above cut-off for caseness concerning general symptomatology at post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up.
CONCLUSION: The findings stress the importance of long-term follow-up data in effect studies. Different trajectories were associated with the two treatments, but improvement in the two treatment groups did not differ significantly at the 1-year follow-up. Implications of the difference in trajectories for treatment planning are discussed.
PRACTITIONER POINTS: Both analytic and systemic group therapy proved efficient in improving general symptomatology, psychosocial functioning, and interpersonal problems in women with a history of CSA and gains were maintained at a 1-year follow-up. Despite maintaining statistically significant gains at the 1-year follow-up, 54% of the patients remained above the cut-off for caseness with respect to general symptomatology, which may indicate a need for further treatment. Different pre-post follow-up treatment trajectories were observed between the two treatment modalities. Thus, while systemic group therapy showed a significantly better outcome immediately after termination, gains in the systemic treatment group decreased during follow-up, while gains were maintained during follow-up in analytic group therapy.