The (neuro)-science behind resilience: A focus on stress and reward

Martin‐Soelch, Chantal

doi:10.32872/cpe.11567

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, we know from a large body of research that pathological mechanisms are not limited to a single disorder, but oftentimes pose transdiagnostic problems (Dalgleish et al, 2020). Transdiagnostic mechanisms include (but are not limited to), dysfunctional expectations with aberrant belief updating (Kirchner et al, 2022), social impairments (Lehmann et al, 2019), and reward insensitivity and its interplay with stress dysregulation (Martin-Soelch, 2023). Given the importance of transdiagnostic mechanisms, it may be worthwhile to allocate treatment based on these mechanisms rather than solely on diagnoses.…”

Section: Idea One: Focus On Transdiagnostic Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mind the gap - Ideas for making clinical research more relevant for practitioners and patients

Berg¹,

Schemer²,

Kirchner³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limited practical relevance of “typical clinical trials” - that often compare a small to medium sized group of patients diagnosed according to a standard clinical manual to a waiting list control condition - has been the matter of longstanding debate in clinical psychology. In this letter we present five reasons for why most clinical research might have gotten a reputation as “one source of many” and “oftentimes not relevant” for the everyday practice of clinical psychologists. More importantly we present novel ways for addressing major problems in our field based on recent developments. In short, we describe why addressing the research-practice gap requires a shift towards dismantling the effect of specific therapeutic techniques on better-operationalized transdiagnostic mechanisms. Further we discuss why monitoring individual trajectories and using causal inference in routine care can provide valuable insights into therapy effectiveness, if needed at an individual level. Finally, we believe that the active involvement of non-scientists in participatory science programs can be utilized to create research that is interesting and engaging to practitioners and patients alike.

show abstract