Institute of Psychology, Westfälische Wilhelms-University Münster, Münster, Germany.
Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung, Münster, Germany.
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2020 Mar;27(2):193-202. doi: 10.1002/cpp.2418. Epub 2020 Jan 13.
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has been shown to be a valid and sensitive measure of treatment effects in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). As part of a clinical trial, this EMA study deals with a comparison of two treatment conditions, that is, cognitive restructuring (CR) and detached mindfulness (DM). EMA data from n = 39 OCD patients were available from a randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of CR and DM. Smartphone-based EMA sampling spread over 4 days each before and after treatment, with 10 random prompts per day and a 2-week intervention of either CR or DM. We tracked CR strategies (e.g., questioning an appraisal by re-evaluating risk), DM strategies (e.g., allowing one's thoughts to come and go), and application of newly learned strategies during Post-Treatment EMA. Although there was a trend towards DM strategies being applied more often during Pre-Treatment EMA than CR strategies, we did not find differences during Post-Treatment EMA between CR and DM regarding frequency or difficulty of application and experienced relief. As expected, we found a clear pre-post increase for all CR and DM behaviours except for one DM item. However, we did not find a treatment-specific increase of CR and DM behaviours; that is, both interventions equally well promoted a seemingly general treatment effect. Despite the ecological validity of EMA, however, social desirability effects cannot be ruled out, so that this conclusion must be handled cautiously. Further research is needed to replicate and generalize our results.
生态瞬时评估(EMA)已被证明是评估强迫症(OCD)治疗效果的有效且敏感的方法。作为临床试验的一部分,这项 EMA 研究涉及两种治疗条件的比较,即认知重构(CR)和分离正念(DM)。一项关于 CR 和 DM 有效性的随机临床试验中,有 n=39 名 OCD 患者的 EMA 数据可用。基于智能手机的 EMA 采样在治疗前后各持续 4 天,每天有 10 个随机提示,CR 或 DM 的干预时间为 2 周。我们追踪了 CR 策略(例如,通过重新评估风险来质疑评估)、DM 策略(例如,让思绪来去自由),以及在治疗后 EMA 期间应用新学到的策略。尽管在治疗前 EMA 期间 DM 策略的应用频率似乎高于 CR 策略,但我们在治疗后 EMA 期间没有发现 CR 和 DM 之间在应用频率或难度以及体验缓解方面的差异。正如预期的那样,我们发现除了一个 DM 项目外,所有 CR 和 DM 行为都有明显的前后增加。然而,我们没有发现 CR 和 DM 行为的特定治疗增加;也就是说,两种干预措施都同样促进了一种看似普遍的治疗效果。然而,尽管 EMA 具有生态有效性,但不能排除社会期望效应,因此必须谨慎对待这一结论。需要进一步的研究来复制和推广我们的结果。