Effectiveness of an AI-Integrated Proactive Thought Control Intervention for Young Adults With Social Anxiety Disorder
3 de setembro de 2026 atualizado por: Farah Shahzadi
The Objective is to Examine the Effectiveness of Ai Integrated Proactive Thought Control for Social Anxiety Disorder and Compare Its Effectiveness With Active Control Group and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Participants With SAD Will be Recruited From Educational Setting, Will Get 8 Therapy Sessions.
Participants with Social Anxiety Disorder will be recruited from educational settings .
After screening and informed consent, participants will be randomly assigned to PTC , ACG or CBT .The therapy session will be 8 session once a week, and data will be collected through psychological questionnaires in two phases at start and end of intervention.
Visão geral do estudo
Status
Concluído
Condições
Intervenção / Tratamento
Tipo de estudo
Intervencional
Inscrição (Real)
75
Estágio
- Não aplicável
Contactos e Locais
Esta seção fornece os detalhes de contato para aqueles que conduzem o estudo e informações sobre onde este estudo está sendo realizado.
Locais de estudo
-
-
Punjab Province
-
Gujranwala, Punjab Province, Paquistão
- Farah Shahzadi
-
-
Critérios de participação
Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.
Critérios de elegibilidade
Idades elegíveis para estudo
- Adulto
Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis
Não
Descrição
Inclusion Criteria:
- Were between 18 and 26 years of age, corresponding to the developmental period of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2000).
- Met DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder on the SCID-5-RV (First et al., 2015).
- Scored at or above the clinical cutoff of 30 on the LSAS-SR, indicating clinically significant social anxiety (Mennin et al., 2002).
- Were not receiving any other form of psychological intervention at the time of the study.
- Had sufficient English proficiency to understand instructions and complete the assessments (Flores, 2006).
- Provided written informed consent.
- Possessed basic computer literacy and typing skills required for the digital tasks.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Were younger than 18 or older than 26 years.
- Did not meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder on the SCID-5-RV.
- Scored in the clinically significant range for general anxiety (BAI ≥ 16; Beck et al., 1988) or at or above the threshold for moderate depression (BDI-II ≥ 20; Beck et al., 1996).
- Were currently receiving psychological treatment for any psychiatric condition.
- Had a lifetime history of a severe psychiatric disorder other than Social Anxiety Disorder (e.g., psychosis, bipolar disorder).
- Had a medical or neurological condition that could interfere with task completion or valid responding.
- Were unable to complete the study procedures or assessments.
- Had no prior experience using a computer.
Plano de estudo
Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.
Como o estudo é projetado?
Detalhes do projeto
- Finalidade Principal: Tratamento
- Alocação: Randomizado
- Modelo Intervencional: Atribuição Paralela
- Mascaramento: Solteiro
Armas e Intervenções
Grupo de Participantes / Braço |
Intervenção / Tratamento |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: proactive thought control
The PTC (Proactive Thought Control) arm an AI-integrated, computerized intervention that trains proactive thought control, the anticipatory maintenance of a positive goal representation used to override an automatically primed negative response before it is produced (Braver, 2012).
Across eight sessions, each pairing a Free Association Task (single-word cues) with a Sentence Completion Task (unfinished social-evaluative stems).
|
The two paired tasks Free Association Task (FAT) and Sentence Completion Task (SCT) form the core of the AI-integrated Proactive Thought Control (PTC) program.
FAT shows a social-threat word and the participant types the first associated word, training proactive control at the lexical level; SCT then gives unfinished social-evaluative stems to complete with a benign word, extending the override to the propositional level.
Both run three blocks of thirty self-paced trials per session (720 over two weeks), so every threat trial forces a positive, cue-relevant representation that overrides a primed negative associate before advancing.
AI integration relies on real-time validation: SiEBERT scores sentiment and MiniLM embedding confirm semantic relevance, enforcing a positive, cue-relevant construal each trial.
Feedback reinforces this accepted responses earn points, rejected one prompt revision, and the threshold relaxes after four failures and pass after eight.
|
|
Comparador Ativo: Cognitive Behavior Therapy
The CBT group served as the gold-standard comparison condition, receiving an eight-session, individually delivered cognitive-behavioral protocol adapted from the empirically supported treatment of Hope, Heimberg, and Turk (2019).
To fit the study's fixed eight-session frame, it followed the manual's accelerated outline, compressing the standard sixteen-to-twenty-session course while still covering most relevant workbook chapters in order.
|
8-session CBT protocol ( Hope, Heimberg & Turk, 2019 manual) The CBT arm received an eight-session protocol moving from psychoeducation and the three-component model of social anxiety with an individualized Fear and Avoidance Hierarchy (Sessions 1-2), through cognitive restructuring using disputing questions from automatic thought to rational response (Sessions 3-4), to repeated graded exposure using role-plays, distress ratings, and added cognitive tools, with the final session offering core-belief work and setting post-treatment maintenance goals (Sessions 5-8)
|
|
Comparador Ativo: Active Control Group
The Active Control group was a structurally and temporally matched, computerized active comparison condition that removed the intervention's active ingredient while preserving every non-specific feature.
Participants completed the same two tasks (Free Association and Sentence Completion), the same cue/stem material, same three blocks of 30 trials per session (720 across eight sessions), same self-paced presentation, practice trials, on-screen appearance, and time on task, so the two conditions were equated on stimuli, dose, feedback salience, and engagement.
The key difference was the omission of the proactive-thought-control contingency.
|
Participants did the same two tasks as the experimental group.
The Free Association Task and the Sentence Completion Task , matched on stimuli, format, and time.
The key difference was that the control removed the core training element: responses were not checked for meaning against the cue, and about half of the negative answers were accepted without correction, so the link between a threat cue and forcing a positive response was broken.
In short, the control group did the same tasks and got the same exposure, but without the active thinking-training component.
|
O que o estudo está medindo?
Medidas de resultados primários
Medida de resultado |
Descrição da medida |
Prazo |
|---|---|---|
|
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self Report
Prazo: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale-Self-Report; range 0-144; higher = worse (greater social anxiety severity)
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
Core Belief Questionnaire (CBQ)
Prazo: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Core Belief Questionnaire-Self-Trait and -Other (17 items each, 6-point Likert); range 17-102 if items are scored 1-6; higher = more strongly endorsed negative core beliefs (worse)".
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
Dot Probe task
Prazo: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
milliseconds; more positive = stronger bias toward social threat
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
word sentence association paradigm
Prazo: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
higher = more threat-relevant interpretation bias
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
|
Behavioral Avoidance Task
Prazo: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
SUDS 0-100; higher = more subjective distress
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Medidas de resultados secundários
Medida de resultado |
Descrição da medida |
Prazo |
|---|---|---|
|
beck depression inventory II
Prazo: Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
range 0-63; higher = worse
|
Baseline (Day 1, before the first session) and Post-Intervention (within 7 days after the eighth session; the 8 sessions are delivered a weekly over a 8-week period
|
Colaboradores e Investigadores
É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.
Patrocinador
Datas de registro do estudo
Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.
Datas Principais do Estudo
Início do estudo (Real)
14 de março de 2026
Conclusão Primária (Real)
12 de agosto de 2026
Conclusão do estudo (Real)
14 de agosto de 2026
Datas de inscrição no estudo
Enviado pela primeira vez
29 de agosto de 2026
Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ
3 de setembro de 2026
Primeira postagem (Real)
9 de setembro de 2026
Atualizações de registro de estudo
Última Atualização Postada (Real)
9 de setembro de 2026
Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade
3 de setembro de 2026
Última verificação
1 de setembro de 2026
Mais Informações
Termos relacionados a este estudo
Termos MeSH relevantes adicionais
Outros números de identificação do estudo
- GIFT/PSY/MS/2025/004
Plano para dados de participantes individuais (IPD)
Planeja compartilhar dados de participantes individuais (IPD)?
INDECISO
Informações sobre medicamentos e dispositivos, documentos de estudo
Estuda um medicamento regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA
Não
Estuda um produto de dispositivo regulamentado pela FDA dos EUA
Não
Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .