Dataset Information

Remote W.A.R.A. Compared With Face-to-Face W.A.R.A.: A Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social restriction measures, online therapy is a life-saving possibility for patients with acute stress. Wiring Affect with ReAttach (W.A.R.A.) is a brief psychological intervention aiming to decrease negative affect, that can be offered online.

Methods

We assessed the effect of remote W.A.R.A. on negative affect in 37 patients. Consequently, we compared the effect of remote W.A.R.A. versus face-to-face W.A.R.A on negative affect in a cross-sectional design.

Results

W.A.R.A. remote therapy provoked a significant reduction of negative affect with a large effect size (d = 3.08, p < 0.001). However, the reduction on negative affect was smaller than with W.A.R.A. face-to-face. We found a substantial difference between W.A.R.A. remote therapy and W.A.R.A. face-to-face in decrease of negative affect (d = 1.36, p < 0.001).

Limitations

The major limitation of the pilot-study is the sample size of 37 patients. Besides, we designed a numeric rating scale for evaluating negative affect. We investigated the impact on negative affect by assessing "unpleasant feelings." This conceptualization of negative affect might still be a point of discussion.

Conclusion

The study's findings indicated that W.A.R.A. remote therapy significantly reduced negative affect, but to a lesser extent than W.A.R.A. face-to-face. Nevertheless, W.A.R.A. remote therapy might offer a fast relief, especially when personal contact is difficult.

SUBMITTER: Weerkamp-Bartholomeus P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7844207 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Remote W.A.R.A. Compared With Face-to-Face W.A.R.A.: A Pilot Study.

Weerkamp-Bartholomeus Paula P Marazziti Donatella D van Amelsvoort Therese T

Frontiers in psychology 20210115

<h4>Background</h4>Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social restriction measures, online therapy is a life-saving possibility for patients with acute stress. Wiring Affect with ReAttach (W.A.R.A.) is a brief psychological intervention aiming to decrease negative affect, that can be offered online.<h4>Methods</h4>We assessed the effect of remote W.A.R.A. on negative affect in 37 patients. Consequently, we compared the effect of remote W.A.R.A. versus face-to-face W.A.R.A on nega ...[more]

PMID: 33519645

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo trial a simplified, time and cost-saving method for remote evaluation of fellowship applications and compare this with existing panel review processes by analysing concordance between funding decisions, and the use of a lottery-based decision method for proposals of similar quality.DesignThe study involved 134 junior fellowship proposals for postdoctoral research ('Postdoc.Mobility'). The official method used two panel reviewers who independently scored the application, followed by triage and discussion of selected applications in a panel. Very competitive/uncompetitive proposals were directly funded/rejected without discussion. The simplified procedure used the scores of the two panel members, with or without the score of an additional, third expert. Both methods could further use a lottery to decide on applications of similar quality close to the funding threshold. The same funding rate was applied, and the agreement between the two methods analysed.SettingSwiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).ParticipantsPostdoc.Mobility panel reviewers and additional expert reviewers.Primary outcome measurePer cent agreement between the simplified and official evaluation method with 95% CIs.ResultsThe simplified procedure based on three reviews agreed in 80.6% (95% CI: 73.9% to 87.3%) of applicants with the official funding outcome. The agreement was 86.6% (95% CI: 80.6% to 91.8%) when using the two reviews of the panel members. The agreement between the two methods was lower for the group of applications discussed in the panel (64.2% and 73.1%, respectively), and higher for directly funded/rejected applications (range: 96.7%-100%). The lottery was used in 8 (6.0%) of 134 applications (official method), 19 (14.2%) applications (simplified, three reviewers) and 23 (17.2%) applications (simplified, two reviewers). With the simplified procedure, evaluation costs could have been halved and 31 hours of meeting time saved for the two 2019 calls.ConclusionAgreement between the two methods was high. The simplified procedure could represent a viable evaluation method for the Postdoc.Mobility early career instrument at the SNSF.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough remote monitoring (RM) has proven its added value in various health care domains, little is known about the remote follow-up of pregnant women diagnosed with a gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD).ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the added value of a remote follow-up program for pregnant women diagnosed with GHD.MethodsA 1-year retrospective study was performed in the outpatient clinic of a 2nd level prenatal center where pregnant women with GHD received RM or conventional care (CC). Primary study endpoints include number of prenatal visits and admissions to the prenatal observation ward. Secondary outcomes include gestational outcome, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome, and admission to neonatal intensive care (NIC). Differences in continuous and categorical variables in maternal demographics and characteristics were tested using Unpaired Student's two sampled t test or Mann-Whitney U test and the chi-square test. Both a univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for analyzing prenatal follow-up and gestational outcomes. All statistical analyses were done at nominal level, Cronbach alpha=.05.ResultsOf the 166 patients diagnosed with GHD, 53 received RM and 113 CC. After excluding 5 patients in the RM group and 15 in the CC group because of the missing data, 48 patients in RM group and 98 in CC group were taken into final analysis. The RM group had more women diagnosed with gestational hypertension, but less with preeclampsia when compared with CC (81.25% vs 42.86% and 14.58% vs 43.87%). Compared with CC, univariate analysis in RM showed less induction, more spontaneous labors, and less maternal and neonatal hospitalizations (48.98% vs 25.00%; 31.63% vs 60.42%; 74.49% vs 56.25%; and 27.55% vs 10.42%). This was also true in multivariate analysis, except for hospitalizations.ConclusionsAn RM follow-up of women with GHD is a promising tool in the prenatal care. It opens the perspectives to reverse the current evolution of antenatal interventions leading to more interventions and as such to ever increasing medicalized antenatal care.

Dataset Information

Remote W.A.R.A. Compared With Face-to-Face W.A.R.A.: A Pilot Study.

Background

Methods

Results

Limitations

Conclusion

Publications

Remote W.A.R.A. Compared With Face-to-Face W.A.R.A.: A Pilot Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets