MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007360695 · doi:10.2196/15797

The Effect of Shame on Patients With Social Anxiety Disorder in Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3007360695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haoyu Wang, Qingxue Zhao, Wenting Mu, Marcus Rodríguez, Mingyi Qian, Thomas Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsShameSocial anxietyAnxietyRandomized controlled trialClinical psychologyPsychologyMedicineCognitive behavioral therapyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Prior research has demonstrated the efficacy of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD). However, it is unclear how shame influences the efficacy of this treatment. Objective This study aimed to investigate the role shame played in the ICBT treatment process for participants with SAD. Methods A total of 104 Chinese participants (73 females; age: mean 24.92, SD 4.59 years) were randomly assigned to self-help ICBT, guided ICBT, or wait list control groups. For the guided ICBT group, half of the participants were assigned to the group at a time due to resource constraints. This led to a time difference among the three groups. Participants were assessed before and immediately after the intervention using the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS), Social Phobia Scale (SPS), and Experience of Shame Scale (ESS). Results Participants’ social anxiety symptoms (self-help: differences between pre- and posttreatment SIAS=−12.71; Cohen d=1.01; 95% CI 9.08 to 16.32; P<.001 and differences between pre- and posttreatment SPS=11.13; Cohen d=0.89; 95% CI 6.98 to 15.28; P<.001; guided: SIAS=19.45; Cohen d=1.20; 95% CI 14.67 to 24.24; P<.001 and SPS=13.45; Cohen d=0.96; 95% CI 8.26 to 18.64; P<.001) and shame proneness (self-help: differences between pre- and posttreatment ESS=7.34; Cohen d=0.75; 95% CI 3.99 to 10.69; P<.001 and guided: differences between pre- and posttreatment ESS=9.97; Cohen d=0.88; 95% CI 5.36 to 14.57; P<.001) in both the self-help and guided ICBT groups reduced significantly after treatment, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups. Across all the ICBT sessions, the only significant predictors of reductions in shame proneness were the average number of words participants wrote in the exposure module (β=.222; SE 0.175; t96=2.317; P=.02) and gender (β=−.33; SE 0.002; t77=−3.13; P=.002). We also found a mediation effect, wherein reductions in shame fully mediated the relationship between the average number of words participants wrote in the exposure module and reductions in social anxiety symptoms (SIAS: β=−.0049; SE 0.0016; 95% CI −0.0085 to −0.0019 and SPS: β=−.0039; SE 0.0015; 95% CI −0.0075 to −0.0012). Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that participants’ engagement in the exposure module in ICBT alleviates social anxiety symptoms by reducing the levels of shame proneness. Our study provides a new perspective for understanding the role of shame in the treatment of social anxiety. The possible mechanisms of the mediation effect and clinical implications are discussed. Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1900021952; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=36977

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207