首页> 外文期刊>BMC Health Services Research >‘One man’s medicine is another man’s poison’: a qualitative study of user perspectives on low intensity interventions for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)
【24h】

‘One man’s medicine is another man’s poison’: a qualitative study of user perspectives on low intensity interventions for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

机译:“一个人的药是另一个人的毒药”:定性研究用户对强迫症(OCD)低强度干预措施的看法

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Low intensity interventions based on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) such as computerized therapy or guided self-help can offer effective and accessible care for mild to moderate mental health problems. However, critics argue that by reducing therapist input and the level of experience of the professionals delivering therapy, low intensity interventions deprive users of critical ‘active ingredients’. Thus, while demand management arguments support the use of low intensity interventions for OCD, their integration into existing mental health services remains incomplete. Studies of user views of low intensity interventions can offer valuable insights to define their role and optimize their implementation in practice. Methods Qualitative interviews ( n =?36) in adults with OCD explored user perspectives on the initiation, continuation and acceptability of two low intensity CBT interventions: guided self-help (6?h of professional support) and computerized CBT (1?h of professional support), delivered within the context of a large pragmatic effectiveness trial (ISRCTN73535163). Results While uptake was relatively high, continued engagement with the low intensity interventions was complex, with the perceived limitations of self-help materials impacting on users’ willingness to continue therapy. The addition of professional support provided an acceptable compromise between the relative benefits of self-help and the need for professional input. However, individual differences were evident in the extent to which this compromise was considered necessary and acceptable. The need for some professional contact to manage expectations and personalize therapy materials was amplified in users with OCD, given the unique features of the disorder. However, individual differences were again evident regarding the perceived value of face-to-face support. Conclusions Overall the findings demonstrate the need for flexibility in the provision of low intensity interventions for OCD, responsive to user preferences, as these preferences impact directly on engagement with therapy and perceptions of effectiveness.
机译:背景技术基于认知行为疗法(CBT)的低强度干预措施,例如计算机治疗或指导性自助服务,可以为轻度至中度的心理健康问题提供有效且可及的护理。但是,批评者认为,通过减少治疗师的投入以及提供治疗的专业人员的经验水平,低强度的干预措施会使用户失去关键的“有效成分”。因此,尽管需求管理的论点支持对强迫症进行低强度干预,但将其纳入现有的精神卫生服务仍然不完整。用户对低强度干预措施的看法研究可以提供宝贵的见解,以定义其作用并在实践中优化其实施。方法对成人强迫症患者进行定性访谈(n = 36),探讨了用户对两种低强度CBT干预措施的发起,持续和可接受性的看法:引导性自助(6小时专业支持)和计算机化CBT(1小时个人支持)。专业支持),是在大型实用有效性试验(ISRCTN73535163)的背景下提供的。结果尽管摄入量相对较高,但继续进行低强度干预非常复杂,自助材料的局限性影响了使用者继续治疗的意愿。专业支持的增加在自助的相对利益和专业投入的需求之间提供了可接受的折衷方案。但是,在认为这种妥协是必要和可以接受的程度上,个体差异是明显的。考虑到该疾病的独特特征,强迫症使用者增加了一些专业接触来管理期望和个性化治疗材料的需求。但是,关于面对面支持的感知价值,个人差异再次明显。结论总体而言,研究结果表明,在对强迫症患者提供低强度干预时,需要灵活应对用户的偏爱,因为这些偏爱直接影响对治疗的参与和对有效性的认识。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号