This study investigated the changes in attachment characteristics of patients undergoing inpatient group psychotherapy in routine care. We collected data from 265 consecutively recruited patients and 260 non-clinical control persons using self-report measures of attachment, depression, and socio-demographic characteristics. The effects of treatment on patients were analyzed using propensity score techniques (propensity strata and logit-transformed propensity scores) in combination with a generalized analysis of covariance. A moderate increase of attachment security was found which could be attributed to a decrease both in attachment anxiety and avoidance. Pre-post improvements in attachment with regard to romantic partnerships were stable after a 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, we found significant treatment-covariate interactions indicating that subjects with particularly high treatment propensities (propensities were highly correlated with depression and attachment anxiety) improved the most in terms of attachment security. Our results are encouraging for psychotherapeutic practice in that they provide evidence that long-term attachment improvements can be reached via psychotherapy. Our results will also provide a sound basis for future studies in the field of clinical attachment research, e.g., studies examining whether improved attachment security is correlated to symptom improvements in different psychological disorders.
Within a multisite study, including 289 inpatients from six different hospitals who underwent interpersonal-psychodynamic group psychotherapy, associations among attachment characteristics, therapeutic factors, and treatment outcome were investigated. Attachment characteristics were assessed with an interview-based measure (Adult Attachment Prototype Rating [AAPR]) as well as an attachment self-report (Bielefeld Questionnaire of Client Expectations [BQCE]). Therapeutic factors were measured retrospectively with the Dusseldorf Therapeutic Factors Questionnaire and treated as an individual- as well as a hospital-specific characteristic. On an individual level, only the group climate factor independently predicted treatment outcome (i.e., Symptom Checklist-90-R Global Severity Index and Inventory of Interpersonal Problems mean). If simultaneously but separately included into a path model, analyses revealed independent significant effects of AAPR-Security and BQCE-Security on group climate. If modeled as a latent variable (common attachment security), a substantially higher proportion of group climate variance could be explained. Further analyses revealed interactions between particular therapeutic factors and attachment characteristics, indicating a particular importance of these therapeutic factors for different attachment categories.
In the past, phenomenological research on subjective body experience was characterised by vaguely defined terminology and methodological shortcomings. The term "body image" has been applied heterogeneously in literature in order to describe a variety of bodily phenomena. In this paper, the German terminology applied to the phenomenology of body experiences is described systematically. In developing a systematic terminology the authors refer to scientific evidence as well as recent reviews, and closely adhere to definitions commonly used in English literature. Different perspectives are utilised, particularly anthropological concepts and theories from developmental and self-psychology. Distinct aspects of body experience are described within the context of a network of external determinants and along a continuum between somatic and mental anchor points. Applying the term "body experience" as umbrella term, different aspects are defined: perceptive (body schema/-perceive), affective (body-cathexis), cognitive-evaluative (body-image, body-ego) and body-consciousness. It is emphasized, that the distinct description of functional levels has to be taken as an approximation of the reality of integrated body experience.
Background/Aims: Based on pretreatment psychopathological symptoms measured with the Symptom Checklist 90 Revised (SCL-90-R), this study investigated whether stable symptom clusters exist among psychotherapy inpatients. Furthermore, it was examined whether the identified clusters would differ with respect to clinical characteristics and treatment outcome. Sampling and Methods: We collected data from a total of 3,688 psychotherapeutic inpatients involved in psychodynamic group psychotherapy from 10 hospitals. Ipsatized SCL-90-R presymptom data were used as input variables for a series of cluster analyses combining hierarchical (Ward algorithm) and non-hierarchical (k-means) procedures. Results: The cluster analyses revealed a 7-cluster solution with the following subgroups: (1) insecure-paranoid, (2) neutralizing, (3) phobic-anxious, (4) aggressive, (5) insecure-phobic, (6) somatizing, and (7) obsessive-depressive. Cross-validation with independent data sets, as well as alternative statistical procedures, confirmed the stability of the 7-cluster solution. Correlations with clinical diagnoses and interpersonal problems indicate the clinical relevance of the cluster differentiation. The cluster insecure-phobic proved to be less beneficial when used as a predictor of treatment outcome. Furthermore, we found moderator effects between cluster assignment and pretreatment interpersonal problems: the overall amount of interpersonal problems seemed to be detrimental to the patients from the clusters insecure-phobic and somatizing, whereas a relatively (ipsatized) heightened level of dominance was advantageous for improving psychopathological complaints of the patients from the cluster aggressive. Conclusions: We could identify typical and clinically meaningful symptom clusters for the population of inpatients undergoing psychodynamic group psychotherapy in Germany. This finding could help strengthen clinical research which is led by the assumption that it is relevant to characterize patients by a specific pattern of psychopathological symptoms rather than or in addition to one (or more) distinct diagnostic categories.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.