Heliyon · 2020
Randomized comparison of W.A.R.A. (Wiring Affect with ReAttach) versus distraction: A pilot study assessing the efficacy of an ultrafast transdiagnostic intervention.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Weerkamp-Bartholomeus Paula, Marazziti Donatella, Chan Edward, Srivastava Ashutosh, van Amelsvoort Therese
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Generally, neuropsychiatric patients share different symptoms across nosological categories, such as, amongst other, psychological distress, mood alterations, anxiety, and self-regulation disturbances.ReAttach is a novel psychological intervention with its key elements being external affect and arousal regulation, stimulation of multiple sensory processing, conceptualization, affective mentalization, and associative memory processing. ReAttach has been hypothesized to be effective in reducing symptom severity in different psychiatric conditions. Given the limited information currently available, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of main ReAttach elements called "Wiring Affect with ReAttach" (W.A.R.A.) on negative affect (N.A.), and to compare it with "Distraction," another well-established affect-regulating strategy.
METHODS: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
RESULTS: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
LIMITATIONS: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.
METHODS: We used a single-blind, randomized controlled crossover equivalence design to compare the efficacy on N.A. regulation of W.A.R.A. versus Distraction in 101 patients with different neuropsychiatric disorders.
RESULTS: The results showed a significant difference (p < 0.001) in response to W.A.R.A. vs. Distraction, with W.A.R.A. being significantly more effective in regulating N.A., with a large effect size (dRMpooled = 2.38) and a high probability (95%) of success.
LIMITATIONS: The heterogeneity of the study population makes generalization and clear recommendations for specific patient groups difficult. The Numeric Rating Scale might have prevented detection of increased N.A. when the baseline scores were high. More in-depth research is needed to explore the W.A.R.A. technique and the extent of confounding variables such as the placebo effect.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that W.A.R.A. may be an effective, accessible, and brief intervention reducing negative affect. Although premature, these first results are encouraging.