Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et l'exactitude de la traduction n'est pas garantie. Veuillez vous référer au version anglaise pour un texte source.

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

9 juillet 2026 mis à jour par: 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.

Aperçu de l'étude

Statut

Recrutement

Les conditions

Intervention / Traitement

Type d'étude

Interventionnel

Inscription (Estimé)

60

Phase

  • N'est pas applicable

Contacts et emplacements

Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.

Coordonnées de l'étude

Lieux d'étude

  • Allemagne
    • Hesse
      • Frankfurt am Main, Hesse, Allemagne, 60486
        • Recrutement
        • JWGUniversity
        • Contact:
        • Chercheur principal:
          • Ulrich Stangier, PhD

Critères de participation

Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.

Critère d'éligibilité

Âges éligibles pour étudier

  • Adulte
  • Adulte plus âgé

Accepte les volontaires sains

Non

La description

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.

Plan d'étude

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.

Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?

Détails de conception

  • Objectif principal: Traitement
  • Répartition: Randomisé
  • Modèle interventionnel: Affectation parallèle
  • Masquage: Aucun (étiquette ouverte)

Armes et Interventions

Groupe de participants / Bras
Intervention / Traitement
Expérimental: 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.
Autre: Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT)
Intervention planning based on the use of EMA data, feedback of dynamic network analysis and matching of interventions to central nodes of the network.
Autres noms:
  • Thérapie basée sur les processus avec évaluation écologique momentanée
Médicament: Psychiatric medication kept constant over study duration
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
Comparateur actif: 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.
Médicament: Psychiatric medication kept constant over study duration
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
Autre: Routine practice
Intervention planning as usual.
Autres noms:
  • Routine psychotherapy

Que mesure l'étude ?

Principaux critères de jugement

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Depressive and anxiety symptom severity
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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).

Mesures de résultats secondaires

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Client satisfaction
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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).

Collaborateurs et enquêteurs

C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.

Parrainer

Goethe University

Les enquêteurs

  • Chercheur principal: Ulrich Stangier, PhD, Goethe Universität Frankfurt

Publications et liens utiles

La personne responsable de la saisie des informations sur l'étude fournit volontairement ces publications. Il peut s'agir de tout ce qui concerne l'étude.

Publications générales

Liens utiles

Dates d'enregistrement des études

Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.

Dates principales de l'étude

Début de l'étude (Estimé)

27 juin 2026

Achèvement primaire (Estimé)

1 janvier 2029

Achèvement de l'étude (Estimé)

1 janvier 2029

Dates d'inscription aux études

Première soumission

22 juin 2026

Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

9 juillet 2026

Première publication (Réel)

15 juillet 2026

Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude

Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)

15 juillet 2026

Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

9 juillet 2026

Dernière vérification

1 juillet 2026

Plus d'information

Termes liés à cette étude

Mots clés

Termes MeSH pertinents supplémentaires

Autres numéros d'identification d'étude

  • 2026-00-PBACE

Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)

Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?

OUI

Description du régime 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.

Délai de partage 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

Critères d'accès au partage IPD

Proposals should be directed to stangier@psych.uni-frankfurt.de. To gain access, data requestors will need to sign a data access agreement.

Type d'informations de prise en charge du partage d'IPD

  • PROTOCOLE D'ÉTUDE
  • SÈVE
  • CIF
  • ANALYTIC_CODE

Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude

Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine

Non

Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine

Non

Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .

S'abonner