MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401439370 · doi:10.2196/50535

The Efficacy of Web-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy With a Shame-Specific Intervention for Social Anxiety Disorder: Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4401439370 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengke Gou, Huijing Chen, Tomoko Kishimoto, Mingyi Qian, Jürgen Margraf, Thomas Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamePsychoeducationClinical psychologyPsychological interventionSocial anxietyAnxietyPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialCognitive therapyCognitive behavioral therapyCognitionBeck Anxiety InventoryPsychotherapistPsychiatryMedicineBeck Depression InventorySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is one of the most prevalent psychological disorders and generally co-occurs with elevated shame levels. Previous shame-specific interventions could significantly improve outcomes in social anxiety treatments. Recent review suggests that integrating a more direct shame intervention could potentially increase the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy. Web-based cognitive behavioral therapy (WCBT) has proven efficacy, sustaining benefits for 6 months to 4 years. Previous evidence indicated that shame predicted the reduction of social anxiety and mediated between engagements in exposure and changes in social anxiety during WCBT. Objective: This study aimed to design a shame intervention component through a longitudinal study and conduct a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of a shame intervention component in reducing social anxiety symptoms and shame experience in a clinical sample of people with SAD. Methods: The development of a shame intervention component was informed by cognitive behavioral principles and insights from longitudinal data that measured the Experience of Shame Scale (ESS), the Coping Styles Questionnaire, and the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) in 153 participants. The psychoeducation, cognitive construct, and exposure sections were tailored to focus more on shame-related problem-solving and self-blame. A total of 1220 participants were recruited to complete questionnaires, including the ESS, the SIAS, the Social Phobia Scale (SPS), and diagnostic interviews. Following a 2-round screening process, 201 participants with SAD were randomly assigned into a shame WCBT group, a normal WCBT group, and a waiting group. After the 8-week WCBT intervention, the participants were asked to complete posttest evaluations, including the ESS, SIAS and SPS. Results: Participants in the shame WCBT group experienced significant reductions in shame levels after the intervention (ESS: P<.001; ηp2=0.22), and the reduction was greater in the shame intervention group compared to normal WCBT (P<.001; mean deviation -12.50). Participants in both the shame WCBT and normal WCBT groups experienced significant reductions in social anxiety symptoms (SIAS: P<.001; ηp2=0.32; SPS: P<.001; ηp2=0.19) compared to the waiting group after intervention. Furthermore, in the experience of social interaction anxiety (SIAS), the shame WCBT group showed a higher reduction compared to the normal WCBT group (P<.001; mean deviation -9.58). Problem-solving (SE 0.049, 95% CI 0.025-0.217) and self-blame (SE 0.082, 95% CI 0.024-0.339) mediated the effect between ESS and SIAS. Conclusions: This is the first study to design and incorporate a shame intervention component in WCBT and to validate its efficacy via a randomized controlled trial. The shame WCBT group showed a significant reduction in both shame and social anxiety after treatment compared to the normal WCBT and waiting groups. Problem-solving and self-blame mediated the effect of shame on social anxiety. In conclusion, this study supports previous findings that a direct shame-specific intervention component could enhance the efficacy of WCBT.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.381 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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