Dataset Information

Why do patients go off track? Examining potential influencing factors for being at risk of psychotherapy treatment failure.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Routine outcome monitoring can support clinicians to detect patients who deteriorate [not-on-track (NOT)] early in psychotherapy. Implemented Clinical Support Tools can direct clinicians' attention towards potential obstacles to a positive treatment outcome and provide suggestions for suitable interventions. However, few studies have compared NOT patients to patients showing expected progress [on-track (OT)] regarding such obstacles. This study aimed to identify domains that have predictive value for NOT trajectories and to compare OT and NOT patients regarding these domains and the items of the underlying scales.

Methods

During treatment, 413 outpatients filled in the Hopkins-Symptom-Checklist-11 (depressive and anxious symptom distress) before every therapy session as a routine outcome measure. Further, the Assessment for Signal Clients, Affective Style Questionnaire, and Outcome Questionnaire-30 were applied every fifth session. These questionnaires measure the following domains, which were investigated as potential obstacles to treatment success: risk/suicidality, therapeutic alliance, motivation, social support and life events, as well as emotion regulation. Two groups (OT and NOT patients) were formed by defining a cut-off (failure boundary) as the 90% confidence interval (upper bound) of the respective patients' expected recovery curves. In order to differentiate group membership based on the respective problem areas, multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed. Further, OT and NOT patients were compared with regard to the domains' and items' cut-offs by performing Pearson chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests.

Results

The life events and motivation scale as well as the risk/suicidality scale proved to be significant predictors of being not-on-track. NOT patients also crossed the cut-off significantly more often on the domains risk/suicidality, social support, and life events. For both OT and NOT patients, the emotion regulation domain's cut-off was most commonly exceeded.

Conclusion

Life events, motivation, and risk/suicidality seem to be directly linked to treatment failure and should be further investigated for the use in clinical support tools.

SUBMITTER: Schilling VNLS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8528765 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe emergence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria represents a considerable threat to human health, particularly for vulnerable populations such as those living in residential aged care. However, antimicrobial resistance carriage and modes of transmission remain incompletely understood. The Generating evidence on antimicrobial Resistance in the Aged Care Environment (GRACE) study was established to determine principal risk factors of antimicrobial resistance carriage and transmission in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). This article describes the cohort characteristics, national representation, and planned analyses for this study.MethodsBetween March 2019 and March 2020, 279 participants were recruited from five South Australian RACFs. The median age was 88.6 years, the median period in residence was 681 days, and 71.7% were female. A dementia diagnosis was recorded in 54.5% and more than two thirds had moderate to severe cognitive impairment (68.8%). 61% had received at least one course of antibiotics in the 12 months prior to enrolment.ResultsTo investigate the representation of the GRACE cohort to Australians in residential aged care, its characteristics were compared to a subset of the historical cohort of the Registry of Senior Australians (ROSA). This included 142,923 individuals who were permanent residents of RACFs on June 30th, 2017. GRACE and ROSA cohorts were similar in age, sex, and duration of residential care, prevalence of health conditions, and recorded dementia diagnoses. Differences were observed in care requirements and antibiotic exposure (both higher for GRACE participants). GRACE participants had fewer hospital visits compared to the ROSA cohort, and a smaller proportion were prescribed psycholeptic medications.ConclusionsWe have assembled a cohort of aged care residents that is representative of the Australian aged care population, and which provides a basis for future analyses. Metagenomic data isolated from participants and built environments will be used to determine microbiome and resistome characteristics of an individual and the facility. Individual and facility risk exposures will be aligned with metagenomic data to identify principal determinants for antimicrobial resistance carriage. Ultimately, this analysis will inform measures aimed at reducing the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistant pathogens in this high-risk population.

Project description:BackgroundThe interdependent and intersecting nature of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) require collaboration across government sectors, and it is likely that departments with few past interactions will find themselves engaged in joint missions on SDG projects. Intersectoral action (IA) is becoming a common framework for different sectors to work together. Understanding the factors in the environment external to policy teams enacting IA is crucial for making progress on the SDGs.MethodsInterviews [n=17] with senior public servants leading SDG work in nine departments in the federal government of Canada were conducted to elicit information about issues affecting how departments engage in IA for the SDGs. Transcripts were coded based on a set of factors identified in a background review of 20 documents related to Canada's progress on SDGs. Iterative group thematic analysis by the authors illuminated a set of domestic and global contextual factors affecting IA processes for the SDGs.ResultsThe mechanisms for successful IA were identified as facilitative governance, leadership by a central coordinating office, supportive staff, flexible and clear reporting structures, adequate resources, and targeted skills development focused on collaboration and cross-sector learning. Factors that affect IA positively include alignment of the SDG agenda with domestic and global political priorities, and the co-occurrence of social issues such as Indigenous rights and gender equity that raise awareness of and support for related SDGs. Factors that affect IA negatively include competing conceptual frameworks for approaching shared priorities, lack of capacity for "big picture" thinking among bureaucratic staff, and global disruptions that shift national priorities away from the SDGs.ConclusionIA is becoming a normal way of working on problems that cross otherwise separate government accountabilities. The success of these collaborations can be impacted by contextual factors beyond any one department's control.