Association between decentering and reductions in relapse/recurrence in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression in adults: A randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: "Decentering" is defined as the ability to observe one's thoughts and feelings as temporary, objective events in the mind (Safran & Segal, 1990), and is increasingly regarded as a candidate mechanism in mindfulness-based interventions. The present study sought to examine the role of decentering, and other related variables, in the efficacy of Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) as compared to two active comparison conditions. METHOD: Formerly depressed individuals (N = 227), randomly assigned to MBCT (n = 74), relaxation group therapy (RGT; n = 77) or Treatment as usual (TAU; n = 76), completed self-report measures of decentering and symptoms of depression at pre-, mid-, and posttreatment, and relapse was assessed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, posttreatment. RESULTS: With regard to the acute treatment phase, results indicated that, whereas levels of depression increased in both RGT and TAU, MBCT patients remained free from symptom gains. Moreover, gains in decentering from mid- to posttreatment predicted reductions in depression from pre- to posttreatment for MBCT and TAU, but not for RGT. Participants who experienced increases in decentering, measured from mid- to posttreatment, generally evidenced the lowest levels of relapse/recurrence (during the four follow-up assessments), largely irrespective of treatment group. However, results related to change in decentering should be considered exploratory due to small cell sizes among participants who did not experience gains in decentering. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these results suggest that decentering is a potent mechanism for reduction of relapse in major depression, albeit one that is nonspecific to MBCT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".