Partner symptom accommodation in generalized anxiety disorder: a preliminary examination of correlates with symptoms and cognitive behavioural therapy outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptom accommodation is suggested to maintain anxiety pathology and interfere with treatment effectiveness for anxiety and related disorders. However, little is known about symptom accommodation in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). AIM: This study investigated the associations between romantic partner symptom accommodation, GAD symptoms, intolerance of uncertainty (IU), relationship satisfaction, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) outcomes from the perspective of the person with GAD. METHOD: One hundred and twelve people with GAD participated in group CBT and completed measures at pre- and post-treatment. RESULTS: All participants endorsed that their partner engaged in symptom accommodation to some extent, and the most commonly endorsed type was providing reassurance. Greater self-reported partner symptom accommodation was associated with greater GAD symptoms, chronic worry severity, IU, and relationship satisfaction at baseline. Partner symptom accommodation was found to significantly decrease over treatment; however, less improvement in symptom accommodation from pre- to post-treatment was associated with worse treatment outcomes. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to show that partner symptom accommodation is prevalent in adults with GAD and to elucidate the presentation and frequency of behaviours. The findings provide preliminary evidence that targeting partner symptom accommodation in treatment may improve CBT outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".