4.7 Article

A randomized clinical trial of cognitive behavioral therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for panic disorder with agoraphobia

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDICINE
卷 42, 期 12, 页码 2661-2672

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0033291712000876

关键词

Agoraphobia; cognitive behavioral therapy; interpersonal psychotherapy; panic disorder; randomized clinical trial

资金

  1. Institute of Experimental Psychopathology (EPP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) seems to be as effective as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in the treatment of major depression. Because the onset of panic attacks is often related to increased interpersonal life stress, IPT has the potential to also treat panic disorder. To date, a preliminary open trial yielded promising results but there have been no randomized controlled trials directly comparing CBT and IPT for panic disorder. Method. This study aimed to directly compare the effects of CBT versus IPT for the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia. Ninety-one adult patients with a primary diagnosis of DSM-III or DSM-IV panic disorder with agoraphobia were randomized. Primary outcomes were panic attack frequency and an idiosyncratic behavioral test. Secondary outcomes were panic and agoraphobia severity, panic-related cognitions, interpersonal functioning and general psychopathology. Measures were taken at 0, 3 and 4 months (baseline, end of treatment and follow-up). Results. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses on the primary outcomes indicated superior effects for CBT in treating panic disorder with agoraphobia. Per-protocol analyses emphasized the differences between treatments and yielded larger effect sizes. Reductions in the secondary outcomes were equal for both treatments, except for agoraphobic complaints and behavior and the credibility ratings of negative interpretations of bodily sensations, all of which decreased more in CBT. Conclusions. CBT is the preferred treatment for panic disorder with agoraphobia compared to IPT. Mechanisms of change should be investigated further, along with long-term outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据