Department of Psychology, Stockholm University.
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2015 Aug;83(4):808-24. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000023. Epub 2015 May 4.
Procrastination can be a persistent behavior pattern associated with personal distress. However, research investigating different treatment interventions is scarce, and no randomized controlled trial has examined the efficacy of cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). Meanwhile, Internet-based CBT has been found promising for several conditions, but has not yet been used for procrastination.
Participants (N = 150) were randomized to guided self-help, unguided self-help, and wait-list control. Outcome measures were administered before and after treatment, or weekly throughout the treatment period. They included the Pure Procrastination Scale, the Irrational Procrastination Scale, the Susceptibility to Temptation Scale, the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self-report version, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment, and the Quality of Life Inventory. The intention-to-treat principle was used for all statistical analyses.
Mixed-effects models revealed moderate between-groups effect sizes comparing guided and unguided self-help with wait-list control; the Pure Procrastination Scale, Cohen's d = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.29, 1.10], and d = 0.50, 95% CI [0.10, 0.90], and the Irrational Procrastination Scale, d = 0.81 95% CI [0.40, 1.22], and d = 0.69 95% CI [0.29, 1.09]. Clinically significant change was achieved among 31.3-40.0% for guided self-help, compared with 24.0-36.0% for unguided self-help. Neither of the treatment conditions was found to be superior on any of the outcome measures, Fs(98, 65.17-72.55) < 1.70, p > .19.
Internet-based CBT could be useful for managing self-reported difficulties due to procrastination, both with and without the guidance of a therapist.
拖延可能是一种与个人痛苦相关的持续行为模式。然而，研究不同治疗干预措施的研究很少，也没有随机对照试验检查认知行为疗法（CBT）的疗效。同时，基于互联网的 CBT 已被证明对多种疾病有希望，但尚未用于治疗拖延症。
将 150 名参与者随机分为指导自助组、非指导自助组和等待名单对照组。在治疗前、治疗后或治疗期间每周进行一次评估，包括纯粹拖延量表、不合理拖延量表、诱惑易感性量表、蒙哥马利抑郁自评量表、广泛性焦虑症评估量表和生活质量量表。所有统计分析均采用意向治疗原则。
混合效应模型显示，与等待名单对照组相比，指导自助组和非指导自助组之间存在中等的组间效应大小；纯粹拖延量表，Cohen's d = 0.70，95%置信区间（CI）[0.29, 1.10]和 d = 0.50，95% CI [0.10, 0.90]，以及不合理拖延量表，d = 0.81 95% CI [0.40, 1.22]，d = 0.69 95% CI [0.29, 1.09]。指导自助组有 31.3-40.0%的患者达到了临床显著变化，而非指导自助组有 24.0-36.0%的患者达到了临床显著变化。在任何结果测量上，都没有发现治疗条件具有优势，Fs(98, 65.17-72.55) < 1.70，p >.19。
基于互联网的 CBT 可能对管理因拖延而导致的自我报告困难有用，无论是在治疗师的指导下还是没有指导下。
