↓ Skip to main content

Using Functional Analysis as a Framework to Guide Individualized Treatment for Negative Symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Functional Analysis as a Framework to Guide Individualized Treatment for Negative Symptoms
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tania M. Lincoln, Marcel Riehle, Matthias Pillny, Sylvia Helbig-Lang, Anne-Katharina Fladung, Matthias Hartmann-Riemer, Stefan Kaiser

Abstract

Although numerous interventions are available for negative symptoms, outcomes have been unsatisfactory with pharmacological and psychological interventions producing changes of only limited clinical significance. Here, we argue that because negative symptoms occur as a complex syndrome caused and maintained by numerous factors that vary between individuals they are unlikely to be treated effectively by the present "one size fits all" approaches. Instead, a well-founded selection of those interventions relevant to each individual is needed to optimize both the efficiency and the efficacy of existing approaches. The concept of functional analysis (FA) can be used to structure existing knowledge so that it can guide individualized treatment planning. FA is based on stimulus-response learning mechanisms taking into account the characteristics of the organism that contribute to the responses, their consequences and the contingency with which consequences are tied to the response. FA can thus be flexibly applied to the level of individual patients to understand the factors causing and maintaining negative symptoms and derive suitable interventions. In this article we will briefly introduce the concept of FA and demonstrate-exemplarily-how known psychological and biological correlates of negative symptoms can be incorporated into its framework. We then outline the framework's implications for individual assessment and treatment. Following the logic of FA, we argue that a detailed assessment is needed to identify the key factors causing or maintaining negative symptoms for each individual patient. Interventions can then be selected according to their likelihood of changing these key factors and need to take interactions between different factors into account. Supplementary case vignettes exemplify the usefulness of functional analysis for individual treatment planning. Finally, we discuss and point to avenues for future research guided by this model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 18 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 33 51%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,612,989
of 23,538,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,503
of 31,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,138
of 442,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#165
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,538,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.