Testing the Effectiveness of Process Based Therapy in Routine Patient Care and Assessing Its Influence on Therapist Decision Making (PBACE)
9. července 2026 aktualizováno: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stangier, Goethe University
Process Based Therapy Applicability, Effectiveness and Compatibility (PBACE). A Within Therapist Randomized Controlled Trial Testing the Effectiveness of Process Based Therapy in Routine Patient Care and Assessing Its Influence on Therapist Decision Making
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.
Přehled studie
Postavení
Nábor
Podmínky
Typ studie
Intervenční
Zápis (Odhadovaný)
60
Fáze
- Nelze použít
Kontakty a umístění
Tato část poskytuje kontaktní údaje pro ty, kteří studii provádějí, a informace o tom, kde se tato studie provádí.
Studijní kontakt
- Jméno: Ulrich Stangier, PhD
- Telefonní číslo: 049 1707339293
- E-mail: stangier@psych.uni-frankfurt.de
Studijní místa
-
-
Hesse
-
Frankfurt am Main, Hesse, Německo, 60486
- Nábor
- JWGUniversity
-
Kontakt:
- Ulrich Stangier Research Professor, PhD
- Telefonní číslo: +491707339293
- E-mail: stangier@psych.uni-frankfurt.de
-
Vrchní vyšetřovatel:
- Ulrich Stangier, PhD
-
-
Kritéria účasti
Výzkumníci hledají lidi, kteří odpovídají určitému popisu, kterému se říká kritéria způsobilosti. Některé příklady těchto kritérií jsou celkový zdravotní stav osoby nebo předchozí léčba.
Kritéria způsobilosti
Věk způsobilý ke studiu
- Dospělý
- Starší dospělý
Přijímá zdravé dobrovolníky
Ne
Popis
Inclusion Criteria:
- 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
Exclusion Criteria:
- 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.
Studijní plán
Tato část poskytuje podrobnosti o studijním plánu, včetně toho, jak je studie navržena a co studie měří.
Jak je studie koncipována?
Detaily designu
- Primární účel: Léčba
- Přidělení: Randomizované
- Intervenční model: Paralelní přiřazení
- Maskování: Žádné (otevřený štítek)
Zbraně a zásahy
Skupina účastníků / Arm |
Intervence / Léčba |
|---|---|
|
Experimentální: Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT)
In PBT, treatment planning is based on a dynamic network analysis of EMA data collected during the baseline phase.
Therapists identify the central node, significant edges, self-loops, and feedback loops between the nodes.
Using this information, interventions are selected based on empirical evidence for mechanisms of change that correspond to the network characteristics.
These interventions are framed within an evolutionary framework as the variation, selection, and retention of an adaptive mode of the central node in relation to the specific context of the problem.
The change in this key variable is monitored through daily judgments based on EMA.
Treatment also focuses on additional targets to establish adaptive modes of the dimensions as defined in the positive network model.
Concomitant medication is allowed and will be controlled by the study design.
|
Intervention planning based on the use of EMA data, feedback of dynamic network analysis and matching of interventions to central nodes of the network.
Ostatní jména:
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
|
|
Aktivní komparátor: Routine practice (r-PT)
In r-PT, as opposed to PBT, a naturalistic setting is retained for treatment decisions.
Treatment planning follows traditional theories about the factors maintaining the disorder and interventions changing them, e.g.
avoidance and exposure in anxiety disorders or reduced reinforcement of activities and behavioral activation in depression.
Interventions are based on common treatment manuals related to diagnoses, e.g.
CBT for depression.
Individual data from the behavioral analysis are used to tailor the techniques to the individual problems of the patients.
Treatment process is largely structured by personal preferences of the therapist due to experience, knowledge or recommendations of the National guidelines for the mental health problem.Concomitant medication is allowed and will be controlled by the study design.
|
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
Intervention planning as usual.
Ostatní jména:
|
Co je měření studie?
Primární výstupní opatření
Měření výsledku |
Popis opatření |
Časové okno |
|---|---|---|
|
Depressive and anxiety symptom severity
Časové okno: 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
Positive Mental Health and Quality of Life
Časové okno: 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
Therapist Decision Making
Časové okno: 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).
|
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.
|
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).
|
Sekundární výstupní opatření
Měření výsledku |
Popis opatření |
Časové okno |
|---|---|---|
|
Client satisfaction
Časové okno: Assessed at post-treatment (week 28).
|
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.
|
Assessed at post-treatment (week 28).
|
|
Patient and Therapist Attitude Towards EMA-Assessment
Časové okno: 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)
|
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.
|
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)
|
|
Therapist Treatment Evaluation
Časové okno: Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and every four weeks in the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).
|
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)
|
Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and every four weeks in the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).
|
|
Self-Efficacy
Časové okno: 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
Decisional Self-Efficacy
Časové okno: 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.
|
Decision making self-efficacy is measured using the Decision Self-Efficacy Scale.
The DSE is an 11-item self-report instrument measuring self-efficacy in the domain of treatment decisions.
The DSE ranges from 0-4 with higher mean scores reflecting a higher confidence and self-efficacy in treatment decisions.
|
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.
|
|
Therapeutic Alliance
Časové okno: Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate) and assessed at post-treatment (week 28).
|
Therapeutic Alliance is measured at patient level using the Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised Patient Version (WAI-SR-P).
The WAI-SR-P measures therapeutic alliance from the patient's perspective using 12 items as a self report ranging from 1-5 with higher mean scores reflecting a stronger and more positive working alliance as perceived by the patient.
|
Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate) and assessed at post-treatment (week 28).
|
|
Therapist Decision Making Style
Časové okno: 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).
|
Therapists' Decision Making Styles will be measured using the therapist decision making questionnaire (TDMQ).
The TDMQ is a self-report scale measuring therapists' decision-making style using 23 items on a scale from 1 to 5. Higher mean scores on a specific subscale reflect a decision style that puts a higher emphasis on the sources of information belonging to that specific decision making style.
|
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).
|
Spolupracovníci a vyšetřovatelé
Zde najdete lidi a organizace zapojené do této studie.
Sponzor
Vyšetřovatelé
- Vrchní vyšetřovatel: Ulrich Stangier, PhD, Goethe Universität Frankfurt
Publikace a užitečné odkazy
Osoba odpovědná za zadávání informací o studiu tyto publikace poskytuje dobrovolně. Mohou se týkat čehokoli, co souvisí se studiem.
Obecné publikace
- Attkisson CC, Zwick R. The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Eval Program Plann. 1982;5(3):233-7. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(82)90074-x.
- Wilmers, F., & Munder, T. (2016). Der WAI-sr. In K. Geue, B. Strauß, & E. Brähler (Hrsg.), Diagnostische Verfahren in der Psychotherapie (3. Aufl.). Hogrefe.
- Someren, M. W. van, Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.
- Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2012). General Self-Efficacy Scale [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00393-000
- Lukat, J., Margraf, J., Lutz, R., Van Der Veld, W. M., & Becker, E. S. (2019). Positive Mental Health Scale [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t74178-000
- Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (2011). Depression Anxiety Stress Scales [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000
- Frumkin MR, Piccirillo ML, Beck ED, Grossman JT, Rodebaugh TL. Feasibility and utility of idiographic models in the clinic: A pilot study. Psychother Res. 2021 Apr;31(4):520-534. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2020.1805133. Epub 2020 Aug 24.
- Fiehn, H. (n.d.). The Therapist Decision Making Style Questionnaire. [Manuscript in preparation].
- Burgio LD, Sinnott J. Behavioral treatments and pharmacotherapy: acceptability ratings by elderly individuals in residential settings. Gerontologist. 1990 Dec;30(6):811-6. doi: 10.1093/geront/30.6.811.
- Bunn H, O'Connor A. Validation of client decision-making instruments in the context of psychiatry. Can J Nurs Res. 1996 Fall;28(3):13-27.
Užitečné odkazy
Termíny studijních záznamů
Tato data sledují průběh záznamů studie a předkládání souhrnných výsledků na ClinicalTrials.gov. Záznamy ze studií a hlášené výsledky jsou před zveřejněním na veřejné webové stránce přezkoumány Národní lékařskou knihovnou (NLM), aby se ujistily, že splňují specifické standardy kontroly kvality.
Hlavní termíny studia
Začátek studia (Odhadovaný)
27. června 2026
Primární dokončení (Odhadovaný)
1. ledna 2029
Dokončení studie (Odhadovaný)
1. ledna 2029
Termíny zápisu do studia
První předloženo
22. června 2026
První předloženo, které splnilo kritéria kontroly kvality
9. července 2026
První zveřejněno (Aktuální)
15. července 2026
Aktualizace studijních záznamů
Poslední zveřejněná aktualizace (Aktuální)
15. července 2026
Odeslaná poslední aktualizace, která splnila kritéria kontroly kvality
9. července 2026
Naposledy ověřeno
1. července 2026
Více informací
Termíny související s touto studií
Klíčová slova
Další relevantní podmínky MeSH
Další identifikační čísla studie
- 2026-00-PBACE
Plán pro data jednotlivých účastníků (IPD)
Plánujete sdílet data jednotlivých účastníků (IPD)?
ANO
Popis plánu IPD
Individual participant data that underlie the results reported in the main publication of outcomes, after deidentification (text, tables, figures, and appendices) will be shared.
Further Study Protocol, Analysis Plan, Informed Consent Form and Analytic Code will be shared to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal.
Časový rámec sdílení IPD
Beginning 3 months and ending 5 years following article publication.
Data are available for 5 years at the Open Science Forum under: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TVKMQ
Kritéria přístupu pro sdílení IPD
Proposals should be directed to stangier@psych.uni-frankfurt.de.
To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.
Typ podpůrných informací pro sdílení IPD
- PROTOKOL STUDY
- MÍZA
- ICF
- ANALYTIC_CODE
Informace o lécích a zařízeních, studijní dokumenty
Studuje lékový produkt regulovaný americkým FDA
Ne
Studuje produkt zařízení regulovaný americkým úřadem FDA
Ne
Tyto informace byly beze změn načteny přímo z webu clinicaltrials.gov. Máte-li jakékoli požadavky na změnu, odstranění nebo aktualizaci podrobností studie, kontaktujte prosím register@clinicaltrials.gov. Jakmile bude změna implementována na clinicaltrials.gov, bude automaticky aktualizována i na našem webu .