Title |
Moderation and mediation of the effect of attention training in social anxiety disorder
|
---|---|
Published in |
Behaviour Research & Therapy, December 2013
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.brat.2013.12.003 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jennie M. Kuckertz, Elena Gildebrant, Björn Liliequist, Petra Karlström, Camilla Väppling, Owe Bodlund, Therése Stenlund, Stefan G. Hofmann, Gerhard Andersson, Nader Amir, Per Carlbring |
Abstract |
While attention modification programs (AMP) have shown promise as laboratory-based treatments for social anxiety disorder, trials of internet-delivered AMP have not yielded significant differences between active and control conditions. To address these inconsistencies, we examined the moderational and mediational role of attention bias in the efficacy of attention training. We compared data reported by Carlbring et al. (2012) to an identical AMP condition, with the exception that participants were instructed to activate social anxiety fears prior to each attention training session (AMP + FACT; n = 39). We also compared all attention training groups to an internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (iCBT) condition (n = 40). Participants in the AMP + FACT group experienced greater reductions in social anxiety symptoms than both active (n = 40) and control (n = 39) groups reported by Carlbring et al., and did not differ in symptom reductions from the iCBT group. Higher attention bias predicted greater symptom reductions for participants who completed AMP, but not for the control group. Moreover, change in attention bias mediated the relationship between AMP group (active condition reported by Carlbring et al. versus AMP + FACT) and change in social anxiety symptoms. These results suggest the importance of interpreting findings related to symptom change in attention training studies in the context of bias effects. Trial registration: ISRCTN01715124. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 246 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 22% |
Student > Master | 37 | 15% |
Researcher | 36 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 20 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 4% |
Other | 44 | 18% |
Unknown | 47 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 130 | 52% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 4% |
Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 3% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
Other | 23 | 9% |
Unknown | 61 | 24% |