• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

分组分析中患者对治疗因素的排名。

Patients' ranking of therapeutic factors in group analysis.

作者信息

Vlastelica Mirela, Pavlović Slavica, Urlić Ivan

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.

出版信息

Coll Antropol. 2003 Dec;27(2):779-88.

PMID:14746171
Abstract

The aim of this research is to assess which therapeutic factors are of greatest importance to patients in group analytic psychotherapy, and whether the patients' characteristics and the phase of the group process influenced their evaluation of therapeutic factors. The Yalom's group therapeutic factors questionnaire was filled out by 66 patients, members of small groups conducted according to group analytic principles. The average scores for each therapeutic factor were subsequently ranked by importance to the patients and related to their age, sex, education, previous psychotherapeutic experience and phase of group process. Self-understanding was the highest-ranking therapeutic factor for the patients (average score 21.32 +/- 0.04 out of 25 maximum), whereas identification was the lowest ranking factor (15.88 +/- 0.06 in average). Group therapeutic factors were scored higher by women, patients up to 30 years of age, high-school graduates, and those with previous psychotherapeutic experience. Self-understanding seems to be the most important therapeutic factor in group analysis, emphasizing the importance of appropriate selection of patients for group analysis in order to utilize therapeutic factors the best.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估在团体分析心理治疗中,哪些治疗因素对患者最为重要,以及患者的特征和团体治疗过程的阶段是否会影响他们对治疗因素的评价。66名患者填写了亚隆团体治疗因素问卷,这些患者是按照团体分析原则开展的小组的成员。随后,根据对患者的重要性对每个治疗因素的平均得分进行排序,并将其与患者的年龄、性别、教育程度、既往心理治疗经历以及团体治疗过程的阶段相关联。自我理解是患者评价最高的治疗因素(满分25分,平均得分21.32±0.04),而认同则是排名最低的因素(平均分为15.88±0.06)。女性、30岁及以下的患者、高中毕业生以及有过心理治疗经历的患者对团体治疗因素的评分更高。自我理解似乎是团体分析中最重要的治疗因素,这强调了为团体分析适当选择患者以最佳利用治疗因素的重要性。

相似文献

1
Patients' ranking of therapeutic factors in group analysis.分组分析中患者对治疗因素的排名。
Coll Antropol. 2003 Dec;27(2):779-88.
2
The assessment of the analytic group treatment efficiency according to Yalom's classification.根据亚隆分类法对分析性团体治疗效果进行评估。
Coll Antropol. 2001 Jun;25(1):227-37.
3
Group members' assessment of their conductor in small analytic group.
Coll Antropol. 2004;28 Suppl 2:183-90.
4
Aggression in group psychoanalytic psychotherapy: questionnaire development (GA-AG).
Coll Antropol. 2009 Sep;33(3):879-87.
5
Empathy in group psychoanalytic psychotherapy: questionnaire development.
Coll Antropol. 2008 Sep;32(3):963-72.
6
[Conception and evaluation of a group therapy intervention for patients with chronic pain disorders and applications for early retirement pensions].[针对慢性疼痛障碍患者的团体治疗干预措施的构想与评估以及提前退休金申请的应用]
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2008 Aug;47(4):211-8. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1076703.
7
Group psychotherapy of psychosomatic outpatients--analysis of the ten first sessions.心身疾病门诊患者的团体心理治疗——前十次治疗分析
Span J Psychol. 2009 May;12(1):192-203.
8
Client perception of therapeutic factors in group psychotherapy and growth groups: an empirically-based hierarchical model.
Int J Group Psychother. 2008 Apr;58(2):203-30. doi: 10.1521/ijgp.2008.58.2.203.
9
Measuring the satisfaction of intensive care unit patient families in Morocco: a regression tree analysis.衡量摩洛哥重症监护病房患者家属的满意度:回归树分析
Crit Care Med. 2008 Jul;36(7):2084-91. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31817c104e.
10
Influences on patients' ratings of physicians: Physicians demographics and personality.对患者对医生评分的影响:医生的人口统计学特征和个性。
Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Feb;65(2):270-4. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.007. Epub 2006 Nov 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Group analytic psychotherapy (im)possibilities to research.团体分析心理治疗的研究(不)可能性。
Ment Illn. 2011 Mar 3;3(1):e2. doi: 10.4081/mi.2011.e2. eCollection 2011 Feb 22.