China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Effect Of A Multimodal Stress Management Program On Immune And Psychological Functions
Published in Husband Alan J., Behaviour and Immunity, 2019
A. Blenkhorn, D. Silove, C. Magarey, S. Krillis, H. Colinet
The study involved two intervention groups treated consecutively, and two waiting list control groups. As shown in Figure 1, at the first meeting (Phase 1, Week 1) 38 consenting subjects (Group A) were randomly allocated to either a treatment group (Group 1), or a wait list control group (Group 2). After the six weeks intervention period (Phase 2, Week 8), another 25 subjects (Group B) entered the study and were randomly allocated to either the treatment group (Group 3) or the wait list control group (Group 4). Groups 2 and 3 then completed the 6 week intervention program together, while Group 4 waited. At the end of the six week period (Week 13) all groups completed tests including Group 1 which had six week follow up tests, and then Group 4 entered the intervention program, completing post intervention tests at week 20.
Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions for Chronic Pain
Published in Andrea Kohn Maikovich-Fong, Handbook of Psychosocial Interventions for Chronic Pain, 2019
Emily Cox-Martin, Lisa H. Trahan, Diane M. Novy
Dear et al. (2015) replicated their study of the Pain Course with a new objective: test regular (weekly 10–15-minute telephone or e-mail contact), optional, and no contact from a therapist. Relative to a waitlist control group, the treatments demonstrated a large effect on depression, moderate effects on anxiety and disability, and a small-to-moderate effect on average pain level, with no differences among the treatment groups. There was greater improvement in average pain in the treatment groups, with no difference among the treatment groups at either post-treatment or follow-up. Regular therapist contact was associated with minor increases in depression and anxiety at three-month follow-up, whereas optional therapist contact was associated with a minor reduction in anxiety at three-month follow-up. All treatment groups extended reductions in disability during the follow-up period.
Quantitative approaches in sport-related concussion research
Published in Gordon A. Bloom, Jeffrey G. Caron, Psychological Aspects of Sport-Related Concussions, 2019
Meredith Rocchi, Camille Guertin, Scott Rathwell
When designing randomized controlled trials, researchers should consider the type of control groups they use as a comparison (Kinser & Robins, 2013). For example, researchers can choose to have a no-treatment control group, where the control participants simply perform the assessments but receive no version of the intervention. This approach accounts for participant history during the intervention and any statistical bias related to completing repeated assessments; however, these participants are increasingly susceptible to dropout and may seek other treatment during the study. Researchers can also use a wait-list control group, where the intervention is delayed for the period of the study and control participants receive the intervention after the study is complete. This method is often used when it would be unethical for participants not to receive the intervention; however, the waiting period may make the study unfeasible if participants seek other treatment due to long wait times. Finally, researchers can use attention control groups, where the control participants receive some sort of related intervention, but not the one of interest in the study (i.e., a placebo treatment or alternative training). Researchers must choose this type of design if they want to use blind or double-blind procedures. These designs generally require more resources and must address ethical issues related to participants’ expectations of receiving treatment but are most reliable for minimizing confounding variables.
Online psychosocial intervention for persons with spinal cord injury: A meta-analysis
Published in The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 2023
Daymon Blackport, Richard Shao, Jessica Ahrens, Keith Sequeira, Robert Teasell, Heather Hadjistavropoulos, Eldon Loh, Swati Mehta
Significant pooled effects were seen on symptoms of anxiety (SDM = 0.42 ± 0.09, P< 0.001; SDM = 0.50 ± 0.1, P< 0.001), depression (SDM = 0.41 ± 0.09, P< 0.001; SDM = 0.64 ± 0.10, P< 0.001), and pain (SDM = 0.41 ± 0.10, P< 0.001; SDM = 0.34 ± 0.10, P= 0.001) at post-intervention and follow-up, respectively. Overall, most included studies demonstrated significant effects on outcomes of interest. The comparator group selected may explain some of the variability in outcomes. Of the three RCTs, comparators included usual management,26 psychoeducational information with no further therapist contact,28 and a waitlist control group.27 Among these, not surprisingly, Migliorini et al.27 reported the largest improvements compared to comparator, a waitlist control group. In a meta-analysis, Furukawa and colleagues33 found that effect sizes of CBT when compared to wait-list control groups (OR = 6.26) were substantially greater than no treatment (OR = 2.36) or psychological placebo (OR = 1.65). Cunningham, Kypri, and McCambridge34 have also noted that the use of wait-list control design may overestimate the effects of a treatment program. Thus, the addition of an active control group design over the wait-list control group may provide a clearer understanding of the effects of the intervention.
The impact of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder in perfectionism
Published in International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 2023
Sarah A. Redden, Nora E. Mueller, Jesse R. Cougle
All procedures were approved by the Florida State University Institutional Review Board before beginning the study. Participants began by completing the informed consent form and the Concern Over Mistakes subscale of the Frost MultiDimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS-CM). If they scored at least 29 on the FMPS-CM (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean; Shafran et al., 2017), a clinical interview was performed. Diagnostic interviews were conducted by a doctoral student in clinical psychology. If they did not meet exclusionary criteria after the clinical interview, they were enrolled in the study and completed surveys. Participants were then randomly assigned to the intervention or waitlist control group. Those who were in the intervention group were presented the rationale for the treatment and completed the exposure tasks five times within a two week period, after which they completed post-treatment measures. Those in the waitlist control group returned two weeks after the baseline visit to complete post-treatment questionnaires.
Cliteracy for him: effectiveness of bibliotherapy for heterosexual men’s sexual functioning
Published in Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 2023
Hannah Warshowsky, Elizabeth A. Mahar, Laurie B. Mintz
Therefore, in addition to the ANOVA Group × Time interactions, we present the data with Hedges’ g effect sizes and confidence limits to “disentangle effect size and sample size” (Turner & Bernard, 2006, p. 44). Hedges' g effect size was utilized due to it being less affected by sample size than the more commonly known Cohen’s d, as well as being the effect size recommended for use in meta-analyses (Turner & Bernard, 2006). As recommended by Lipsey et al. (2012), to examine the effect of the interventions on the outcomes, we employed both within-group effect sizes and between-group effect sizes. Specifically, for the intervention group and the waitlist control group, we examined: a) pretest (week 1) to posttest (week 2) and b) pretest (week 1) to follow-up (week 4) effect sizes. In terms of between group effect sizes, we compared the wait-list control group with the intervention group at posttest and follow-up.