Evaluation of symptom network density as a predictor of treatment outcome of inpatient psychotherapy

• Verfasst von: Deflorin, Hanna M. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Söker, Mara S. [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bauer, Stephanie [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Moessner, Markus [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Evaluation of symptom network density as a predictor of treatment outcome of inpatient psychotherapy
• Verf.angabe: Hanna M. Deflorin, Mara S. Söker, Stephanie Bauer, & Markus Moessner
• E-Jahr: 2024
• Jahr: 26 Jun 2024
• Umfang: 9 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 20.11.2024
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Psychotherapy research
• Ort Quelle: London [u.a.] : Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, 1991
• Jahr Quelle: 2024
• Band/Heft Quelle: (2024), Seite 1-9
• ISSN Quelle: 1468-4381
• DOI: doi:10.1080/10503307.2024.2365235
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• Sach-SW: Network analysis
• Sach-SW: network density
• Sach-SW: prediction
• Sach-SW: recovery
• Sach-SW: transdiagnostic
• Sach-SW: treatment outcome
• K10plus-PPN: 1909080527

Abstract

The network approach implies that the persistence of a mental disorder is rooted in a dense causal interconnection of symptoms. This study attempts to replicate and generalize previous findings in support of the assumption that higher density predicts poorer outcomes. The study examines the predictive value of network density at admission for recovery after inpatient treatment. N = 1375 adult patients with various forms of mental illness were classified as recovered (28%) versus not recovered (72%) after inpatient treatment. Recovery was defined as clinically significant improvement in impairment from admission to discharge. Networks of transdiagnostic symptoms at the time of admission were estimated. Network density, measured by global strength d, was compared between the recovered and not recovered groups using a permutation test. Global strength at the time of admission tended to be higher in the No-Recovery group (d = 10.83) than the Recovery group (d = 7.53) but the association was not significant (p = .12). Similar results were found after controlling for group size and symptom severity. The predictive value of network density for treatment outcomes remains unclear. There might be structural differences between the groups that the current measure of network density does not adequately represent.