Testing the Efficacy of a Brief, Self-Guided Mindfulness Ecological Momentary Intervention on Emotion Regulation and Self-Compassion in Social Anxiety Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Theories propose that brief, mobile, self-guided mindfulness ecological momentary interventions (MEMIs) could enhance emotion regulation (ER) and self-compassion. Such changes are posited to be mechanisms of change. However, rigorous tests of these theories have not been conducted. OBJECTIVE: In this assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, we aimed to test these theories in social anxiety disorder (SAD). METHODS: Participants with SAD (defined as having a prerandomization cut-off score ≥20 on the Social Phobia Inventory self-report) were randomized to a 14-day fully self-guided MEMI (96/191, 50.3%) or self-monitoring app (95/191, 49.7%) arm. They completed web-based self-reports of 6 clinical outcome measures at prerandomization, 15-day postintervention (administered the day after the intervention ended), and 1-month follow-up time points. ER and self-compassion were assessed at preintervention and 7-day midintervention time points. Multilevel modeling determined the efficacy of MEMI on ER and self-compassion domains from pretrial to midintervention time points. Bootstrapped parallel multilevel mediation analysis examined the mediating role of pretrial to midintervention ER and self-compassion domains on the efficacy of MEMI on 6 clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated strong compliance, with 78% (149/191) engaging in at least 80% of the MEMI and self-monitoring prompts. MEMI was more efficacious than the self-monitoring app in decreasing ER goal-directed behavior difficulties (between-group Cohen d=-0.24) and lack of emotional clarity (Cohen d=0.16) and increasing self-compassion social connectedness (Cohen d=0.19), nonidentification with emotions (Cohen d=0.16), and self-kindness (Cohen d=0.19) from pretrial to midintervention time points. The within-group effect sizes from pretrial to midintervention were larger in the MEMI arm than in the self-monitoring app arm (ER goal-directed behavior difficulties: Cohen d=-0.73 vs -0.29, lack of emotional clarity: Cohen d=-0.39 vs -0.21, self-compassion domains of social connectedness: Cohen d=0.45 vs 0.19, nonidentification with emotions: Cohen d=0.63 vs 0.48, and self-kindness: Cohen d=0.36 vs 0.10). Self-monitoring, but not MEMI, alleviated ER emotional awareness issues (between-group Cohen d=0.11 and within-group: Cohen d=-0.29 vs -0.13) and reduced self-compassion acknowledging shared human struggles (between-group Cohen d=0.26 and within-group: Cohen d=-0.23 vs 0.13). No ER and self-compassion domains were mediators of the effect of MEMI on SAD symptoms (P=.07-<.99), generalized anxiety symptoms (P=.16-.98), depression severity (P=.20-.94), repetitive negative thinking (P=.12-.96), and trait mindfulness (P=.18-.99) from pretrial to postintervention time points. Similar nonsignificant mediation effects emerged for all of these clinical outcomes from pretrial to 1-month follow-up time points (P=.11-.98). CONCLUSIONS: Brief, fully self-guided, mobile MEMIs efficaciously increased specific self-compassion domains and decreased ER difficulties associated with goal pursuit and clarity of emotions from pretrial to midintervention time points. Higher-intensity MEMIs may be required to pinpoint the specific change mechanisms in ER and self-compassion domains of SAD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries; osf.io/m3kxz https://osf.io/m3kxz.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».