MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7064775929

Close Others as Context: Understanding Treatment Attitudes in Anxiety and Related Disorders

2022· dissertation· en· W7064775929 sur OpenAlexfundno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2022
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueOptical Polarization and Ellipsometry
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Waterloo
Mots-clésAnxietySocial anxietyPopulationAccommodationExploratory researchExploratory factor analysisRegression analysisSample (material)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Up to one-quarter of the North American population suffers from excessive anxiety and the associated impaired quality of life. While there is evidence that anxiety treatment is effective, it is underutilized, with most sufferers avoiding treatment or dropping out early. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) points to social norms and treatment attitudes as major factors in one’s treatment interest and engagement. Of course, these two factors are not completely independent, and this thesis highlights their intersection through investigating how the behaviour of one’s social network relates to treatment attitudes. We focus on two types of behaviour that have been documented as important variables in anxiety maintenance and treatment: criticism and accommodation of anxiety symptoms. This series of studies is the first to investigate the relationships between criticism, accommodation, and treatment attitudes of adult anxiety sufferers themselves, as well as treatment attitudes of their close others. In study one, participants with excessive anxiety completed measures of treatment ambivalence, perceived criticism, and accommodation of symptoms. Regression analysis revealed that accommodation and criticism were both significantly positively related to treatment fears, even when therapy history, sample type (clinical/analogue), and demographic factors were controlled for. To explore this relationship in close others, a measure of close others’ treatment concerns needed to be developed; this was the focus of study two. Close others’ qualitative responses about their treatment concerns were coded to reveal seven major themes, which were then used to develop measure items. These items were administered to a large sample and exploratory factor analysis indicated four internally consistent factors – Adverse Reactions, Personal/Family Consequences, Lack of Commitment, and Ineffectiveness. The new 17-item measure (Treatment Concerns Questionnaire – Close Others, or TCQ-C) showed strong internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. In study three, this measure, as well as measures of self-reported criticism and accommodation, were administered to a sample of close others of those with anxiety. Regression analysis demonstrated a similar finding to study one, in that close others’ treatment fears were significantly positively related to their criticism and accommodation, even when controlling for demographic variables. Altogether, this research adds to the literature on the deleterious effects of criticism and accommodation, but in the novel domain of treatment attitudes. That criticism and accommodation are related to increased treatment ambivalence is perhaps unsurprising when these behaviours are conceptualized as representing underlying negative attributions of sufferers. These findings suggest that while close others may be trying to help or support their loved ones through engaging in criticism and/or accommodation, these behaviours may in fact have the opposite effect in that they may discourage wellness efforts. In addition, while families with high amounts of criticism and/or accommodation are ideal candidates for system-focused interventions, these individuals may show the most treatment resistance. Thus, this work has clear clinical implications and suggests the need to take the social system into account when treating anxiety. Methods for addressing treatment concerns, criticism, and accommodation are discussed, as well as limitations of these studies and future directions for research.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,030

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,007
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,205
Écart entre enseignants0,196 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetOptical Polarization and EllipsometryTravaux en français237 207