Handbook of Treating Variants and Complications in Anxiety Disorders 2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-6458-7_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Limited Motivation, Patient-Therapist Mismatch, and the Therapeutic Alliance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 133 publications
(150 reference statements)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Increasing Precision of Personalized Intervention via Use of Machine Learning. Traditional approaches to treatment matching remain somewhat limited in their success (De Nadai & Karver, 2013). While prior approaches to treatment matching have generally used strongly justified hypotheses, many other factors on which patients can be matched to treatment may have not been identified through traditional research.…”
Section: Personalized Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increasing Precision of Personalized Intervention via Use of Machine Learning. Traditional approaches to treatment matching remain somewhat limited in their success (De Nadai & Karver, 2013). While prior approaches to treatment matching have generally used strongly justified hypotheses, many other factors on which patients can be matched to treatment may have not been identified through traditional research.…”
Section: Personalized Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, interpersonal resistance in CBT for anxiety has been a reliable negative predictor of outcome that can be changed with specific therapist responses (Aviram, Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2016; Poulin, Button, Westra, Constantino, & Antony, 2018). This illustrates the clinical utility of such interaction‐level assessments: they help identify areas where different responses from therapists could contribute to improved motivation and better outcomes (De Nadai & Karver, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%