The transition to post-secondary can be onerous for many students, often fraught with challenge across one or multiple domains: academic, social, physical and mental health, financial and developmental.In recent decades, reports of mental distress among post-secondary students have been increasing dramatically (
placebo gels were rubbed onto the skin in the same way as active treatments, we found that active treatments were significantly better than placebo. Creating double blind conditions in trials of counter irritants can be problematic as rubefacients irritate the skin whereas inactive placebos do not. Some studies allowed for this by removing the principle ingredient from the treatment, leaving a placebo vehicle containing some other potentially irritant ingredients. Although the number needed to treat for combined outcomes of trials of this type was greater (worse) than for trials with inactive placebo, the difference was not statistically significant and there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions.
Aim: Cognitive errors (CE) and coping strategies (CS) can bear weight on how individuals relate to others and perceive interpersonal relationships. However, there is little research into how clients' erroneous beliefs and maladaptive coping strategies can interfere with the therapeutic process. This study utilised a sample of healthy clients to explore the relationship between their CEs and CSs and their evaluation of therapy. Method: Therapy sessions of undergraduate student clients (N 026) were rated using the Cognitive Error Rating Scale (CERS Á 3rd edition), the Coping Patterns Rating Scale (CPRS;), the Session Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) and the Session Impact Scale (SIS). Results: Clients who engaged in dichotomous thinking endorsed problem solving less and were more likely to feel unsupported and misunderstood by the therapist. Clients who discounted the positive tended to feel more pressured and judged by therapists. Conversely, those who engaged in problem solving were more likely to find sessions deeper and more valuable as compared to those who reacted to stressful events by submission, escape, or opposition. Implications: Better understanding how and when a client's cognitive errors and coping mechanisms are at play during therapy can help clinicians to address them and intervene appropriately.
While innumerable studies have demonstrated the efficacy of CBT in patients with depression, the mechanisms responsible for depression reduction are not well understood.Aim: This study explored the relationship between therapists' individual techniques and patients' symptoms of depression, cognitive errors, and coping. Of particular interest was the relative importance of techniques specific to CBT and those common to all therapies.
Method: CBT therapy sessions of 43 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) were analyzed using observer-rated measures: the Comprehensive Psychotherapeutic Interventions Rating Scale (CPIRS; Trijsburg et al., 2002) for therapist interventions, and the Cognitive Errors Rating ScaleResults: Results of hierarchical multiple regressions, controlling for pre-treatment depression scores and early cognitive errors and coping scores, showed the common factor intervention 'rapport' as the only intervention that significantly predicted improvement. Among CBT interventions, only the structuring intervention 'scheduling and structuring activities' emerged as a positive predictor of symptoms of depression.
Discussion:These results provide further support for the importance of the therapeutic alliance in predicting depression outcome. While the lack of positive results on therapist CBT technique seem to cast doubt on their relative importance, it may also highlight the importance of measuring technique more contextually.
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.