Testing the Effectiveness of Process Based Therapy in Routine Patient Care and Assessing Its Influence on Therapist Decision Making

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-65
SponsorGoethe University

About this trial

Background: Process Based Therapy (PBT) is a novel approach for a more personalized psychotherapy by integrating patient's ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data into treatment planning and focusing on empirically measured maladaptive processes. Previous pilot studies have examined the efficacy and feasibility of PBT in different settings. However, the effectiveness of this approach as well as the influence of providing EMA data on therapist's decision-making as well as treatment planning is yet unexplored.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of PBT in a naturalistic setting as well examine the influence of the provision of EMA data on therapists' decision-making.

Methods: Thiry therapists as well as 60 patients will be recruited. Therapists will each treat two patients which are randomly allocated to either an intervention group receiving PBT or an active control group receiving routine psychotherapy. Treatment outcomes will be measured pre and post treatment as well as a 6-month follow-up. Therapists' decision making will be measured before training in PBT as well as during the treatment process using think aloud protocols (TAP) as well as quantitative measurements for decision making styles and self efficacy in decision making.

Discussion: This study could add insights into the ongoing research about the efficacy and effectiveness of PBT as well as provide insights into therapists' treatment decisions. While PBT holds theoretical promise for a more personalized and effective treatment, empirical data is still needed to assess its theoretical merit, which this study could provide. Expanding on the thus far scarce literature on decision-making in the therapeutic process, valuable information about processes guiding therapists' treatment decisions could be gained.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

A primary ICD-11 diagnosis of a depressive or anxiety disorder

Age 18-65 years

Sufficient knowledge of the German language

Participating patients are not required to discontinue medication, but to keep medication constant over the treatment period

Disqualifiers

Increased suicidality

Substance abuse or dependency

diagnosis of a cluster A or B (DSM-5) personality disorder

pervasive developmental disorder, psychotic disorder, eating disorder, bipolar disorder, or severe physical illness.

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT)

    Other intervention

    Intervention planning based on the use of EMA data, feedback of dynamic network analysis and matching of interventions to central nodes of the network.

  • Routine practice

    Other intervention

    Intervention planning as usual.

  • Psychiatric medication kept constant over study duration

    Drug

    Psychiatric medication is kept constant during the trial. Participants are not required to take medication. If participants enlisting in the trial are on medication however, they will be asked to keep medication constant over the study duration

Treatment groups

60 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT)Experimental treatment 2 interventions
Group B: Routine practice (r-PT)Active comparator 2 interventions

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Depressive and anxiety symptom severity

To assess Psychopathological Stress , the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21) is used. The DASS-21 is a validated and reliable 21 item self-report instrument for the measurement of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Additionally, stress as a negative affective state is measured on an additional subscale. The scale ranges from 1-4 with higher mean values reflecting higher symptom severity in the respective subscale as well as an overall score of Psychopathological Stress.

Time frame
Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.
2

Positive Mental Health and Quality of Life

Positive mental health and quality of Life will be measured using the positive mental health scale (PMH). The PMH is a validated nine-item self-report scale for the measurement of the presence of positive mental health. Scores range form 1-4 with higher mean scores reflecting a more positive mental health.

Time frame
Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.
3

Therapist Decision Making

Therapist Decision Making regarding treatment planning will be measured using think-aloud protocols (TAP). The think-aloud method is usually used to measure decision making in cognitive tasks such as problem solving, where participants are instructed to "think-aloud" meaning to verbalize their thoughts during a cognitive task. In this study, therapists will be instructed to verbalize their treatment planning at nine measurement points.

Time frame
Assessed pre-training in PBT (Day 0), at Day 1 of treatment, after diagnosis (Day 2), after a hypothetical model is developed (Day 3), after EMA-Assessment is complete (Week-6) and every four weeks during the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).

Secondary outcomes

1

Client satisfaction

Patient satisfaction at the end of treatment, measured with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ). The CSQ uses 8 items with a range of 1-4 with higher mean values reflecting higher satisfaction with the recieved treatment.

Time frame
Assessed at post-treatment (week 28).
2

Patient and Therapist Attitude Towards EMA-Assessment

the therapist attitudes toward the utility of the EMA and networks scale (TAUEN) and the patient attitudes toward the utility of the EMA and networks scale (PAUEN) are modified versions of the Therapist and Client Attitudes Measures. minimum value= 8, maximum value= 40, higher scores mean a higher attitude toward EMA and networks regarding their utility.

Time frame
Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and post-treatment (week 28) (PAUEN). Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and every four weeks in Treatment Phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22) (TAUEN)
3

Therapist Treatment Evaluation

The Treatment Evaluation Inventory will be used to assess therapists' perceptions of treatment. It consists of 14 statements that are evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale, with response options spanning from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). A higher mean score reflects a higher attitude towards the given treatment (e.g. PBT or routine care)

Time frame
Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and every four weeks in the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).
4

Self-Efficacy

Perceived general self-efficacy, meaning an optimistic self-belief that one can perform difficult or novel tasks or cope with adversity is measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The GSE is a 10-item self-report questionnaire with a validated one factor structure. The GSE ranges from 1-4 with a higher mean score reflecting higher self-efficacy.

Time frame
Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.