跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT06625151
NCT06625151招募中不适用

Perfectionism and Daily Stress, Coping, and Well-Being: Testing an Explanatory Feedback Intervention

McGill University1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 200 人开始时间: 2024年10月23日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
招募中
入组人数
200
试验地点
1
主要终点
Patient Empowerment Scale - Adapted version (Dunkley et al., 2023; van Uden-Kraan et al., 2009)

研究概览

简要总结

Over the past three decades, perfectionism has received increasing theoretical and empirical attention as a cognitive-personality factor that increases vulnerability to a wide range of psychological problems, including depression and anxiety. Although mediators and moderators of the link between perfectionism and well-being have been identified, the direct clinical utility of these findings has not been a focus. The Perfectionism and Coping Processes Model - Explanatory Feedback Intervention (PCPM-EFI) draws on previous findings and individually analyzes participant responses to perfectionism measures and online daily questionnaires of stress, coping, and mood over 7 days. The EFI provides an individualized slideshow presentation that is delivered in a single 45-60 minute session by a student research assistant to address how stress and coping patterns trigger and maintain negative affect and (lower) positive affect in the participant's daily life. A recent waitlist controlled feasibility trial compared the PCPM-EFI condition with a waitlist control condition over 4 weeks in 176 university students with higher SC perfectionism, with individualized feedback delivered one-on-one by student trainees in-person or remotely through videoconferencing. The feasibility of the individualized analyses of each participant's daily data was supported by identifying daily trigger patterns, maintenance tendencies, strengths, common triggers, and best targets for reducing negative mood and increasing positive mood across several stressors for each participant. Participant ratings indicated that the comprehensive feedback was coherent and functional. Participants in the EFI condition, compared to those in the control condition, reported increases in empowerment, coping self-efficacy, and problem-focused coping, as well as decreases in depressive and anxious symptoms. Between-group effect sizes were moderate-to-large. There were reliable improvements in empowerment and depressive symptoms for 56% and 36%, respectively, of participants in the EFI condition. These findings demonstrate the broad applicability, conceptual utility, and effectiveness of the PCPM-EFI for self-critical perfectionistic individuals. Given these promising findings, research is needed to examine the utility of customizing daily emotion regulation findings, and the complementary effects of providing meaningful feedback on well-being.

The present study will build on the promising findings of the PCPM-EFI by using a 7-day daily diary methodology to test a complementary EFI on perfectionism and emotion regulation processes (e.g., self-compassion, mindfulness, experiential avoidance, rumination, reappraisal) delivered online through videoconferencing in a sample of university students with higher self-critical perfectionism. Based on the Perfectionism and Emotion Regulation Processes Model (PERPM), the PERPM-EFI follows the same structure as the PCPM-EFI to provide individualized analyses drawn from previous findings. The results of a pilot study of 12 university students with higher SC perfectionism suggest that the PERPM-EFI is broadly applicable, conceptually useful, and effective. Specifically, despite the small sample size, participants reported increases in empowerment, mindfulness, self-compassion, and emotional self-awareness, as well as decreases in depressive and anxious symptoms. The present study will use a randomized control design to examine whether the PCPM-EFI plus PERPM-EFI can better improve well-being, relative to providing no feedback, the PERPM-EFI alone, or PCPM-EFI alone in the context of a 4-week longitudinal study with three time points in a sample of 180 university students. The four conditions will be: (a) waitlist control condition, (b) PCPM-EFI, (c) PERPM-EFI, and (d) PCPM-EFI plus PERPM-EFI. It is hypothesized that all three EFI conditions will yield better outcomes than the waitlist control condition. It is also hypothesized that the combined PCPM-EFI plus PERPM-EFI condition will be superior to the PCPM-EFI condition and PERPM-EFI condition on empowerment (primary outcome) and secondary symptom outcomes (i.e., depressive symptoms, anxious symptoms, negative affect, positive affect). It is also expected that participants in the PCPM-EFI plus PERPM-EFI condition and PCPM-EFI condition will exhibit larger increases in coping self-efficacy and problem-focused coping than participants in the PERPM-EFI condition. On the other hand, it is hypothesized that participants in the PCPM-EFI plus PERPM-EFI condition and PERPM-EFI condition will exhibit larger increases in self-compassion, mindfulness, and emotional self-awareness than participants in the PCPM-EFI condition. If the feedback interventions are shown to be efficacious, the interventions could be offered to universities, work places, clinical settings, and other organizations.

详细描述

1. Rationale for Study. Over the past three decades, perfectionism has received increasing theoretical and empirical attention as a cognitive-personality factor that increases vulnerability to several psychological problems, including depression and anxiety. In Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, young adults are experiencing higher levels of depression, anxiety, and suicide ideation as well as significantly higher levels of self-critical perfectionism than a decade ago. Although the self-criticism (SC) dimension of perfectionism has been consistently associated with lower well-being, little longitudinal research has examined the mechanisms through which SC is related to well-being over time.

1.a. Perfectionism Dimensions and Daily Stress Reactivity and Coping (In)effectiveness.

Previous longitudinal studies of university students, community adults, and depressed patients have used 7-day and 14-day daily diary designs to obtain several assessments of appraisals, coping, and affect for each individual in the individual's natural everyday environments. Based on the Perfectionism Coping Processes Model (PCPM), multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM)/SEM between-persons results have demonstrated that SC perfectionists maintain lower well-being (e.g., negative affect, lower positive affect) over time because these individuals have a tendency to: (a) generate daily stress for themselves by magnifying the negative aspects of events such that mundane difficulties can be interpreted as threatening stressors; (b) engage in avoidant coping, which stems from helplessness thinking that the individual is unable to cope with stressors to the individual's own and others' satisfaction; and (c) perceive that others are unwilling or unavailable to help the individual in times of stress, and thereby lack an important resource (i.e., perceived social support) to make stressors seem less overwhelming. On the other hand, the adaptive potential of PS has been exhibited by an indirect relation with positive affect through maintenance of higher daily problem-focused coping when individuals with higher PS are not depressed. MSEM within-person results have shown that several distinct appraisals (e.g., event stress) and coping strategies (e.g., avoidant coping) commonly operate together across many different stressors when the typical individual experiences daily increases in negative affect and drops in positive affect. In parallel, constructive social (e.g., perceived social support) and self (e.g., perceived control) appraisals and engagement coping strategies (e.g., positive reinterpretation, problem-focused coping) commonly facilitate one another, which is linked to within-person increases in daily positive affect for the typical individual.

1.b. Perfectionism Dimensions and Daily Emotion (Dys)regulation. Given the pervasive and enduring stress management problems that generate persistent distress for perfectionistic individuals, it is important to better understand how certain emotion regulation strategies might make emotional reactions worse or serve a protective role. A recent SSHRC-funded study extends this previous research by using 14-day daily diaries and MSEM/multilevel modeling to examine the impact of SC and PS dimensions of perfectionism on emotion regulation (e.g., mindfulness, self-compassion, experiential avoidance, rumination) and well-being in a sample of 154 community adults over two years. Based on the Perfectionism and Emotion Regulation Processes Model (PERPM), MSEM between-persons results demonstrated that SC perfectionism maintains higher negative affect and lower positive affect over 14 days because these individuals have a tendency to generate daily stress for themselves and engage in experiential avoidance and rumination, and tend less to engage in mindfulness, self-compassion, and reappraisal. Within-person mediation results showed that, when the typical individual perceives more stress than usual, the individual responds with less mindfulness, self-compassion, and reappraisal than usual, and engages in more experiential avoidance and rumination than usual, and this was connected to decreases in daily well-being. Further, multilevel modeling results demonstrated that individuals with higher SC perfectionism, relative to those with lower SC, experience stronger within-person decreases in well-being (e.g., higher negative affect, lower positive affect) when the individual reports more stress than usual, and less self-compassion and mindfulness than usual.

  1. c. Feedback Interventions for Perfectionists. Although mediators and moderators of the link between perfectionism and well-being have been identified, the direct clinical utility of these findings has not been a focus. Few studies have involved participants in a role beyond the completion of study questionnaires/diaries. An exception was a study in which a total of 60 young adults assessed to be maladaptive perfectionists were randomized to a control group or a single-session feedback intervention in which the participant's perfectionism results were discussed. Findings revealed that providing feedback to maladaptive perfectionists about the individual's perfectionism reduced self-reported global symptomatic distress as well as emotional reactivity. Although the findings suggest that a brief, individualized feedback intervention is effective, one important limitation of extant studies employing feedback interventions is that the feedback did not describe the actions to be taken to make change. According to feedback intervention theory and the model of actionable feedback, feedback will have an optimal effect on performance when information is focused on helping the recipient see how his/her behaviour should change to improve functioning. This entails customizability of feedback that engages the individual with his/her own data, making him/her an active participant in the sense-making process, rather than a passive recipient of information.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Parallel
主要目的
Treatment
盲法
None

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 65 Years(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Included in the study will be students who score 0.5 standard deviation above the mean score on two or more of four brief [4- or 5-item] measures of SC perfectionism (DEQ self-criticism, FMPS concern over mistakes, HMPS socially prescribed perfectionism, and APS-R discrepancy) for previous student samples

排除标准

  • Individuals who meet the criteria for a diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorders and who do not have concomitant mental health care will be excluded from the study.
  • Participants will be excluded if they fail to complete any of the Time 1 measures, or seven days of the daily diary procedure.

结局指标

主要结局

Patient Empowerment Scale - Adapted version (Dunkley et al., 2023; van Uden-Kraan et al., 2009)

时间窗: Measure completed at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline) after all participants completed the Step 1 daily reporting procedure, and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2). Will also be administered immediately after feedback.

20-item adapted measure of four empowering outcomes, including being better informed, improved acceptance of problems, increased optimism and control over the future, and enhanced self-esteem. All items have the format of a statement that begins with "Through my participation in the study, … ."

Patient Empowerment Scale - Adapted version (Dunkley et al., 2023; van Uden-Kraan et al., 2009)

时间窗: Measure completed at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline) after all participants completed the Step 1 daily reporting procedure, and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2). Will also be administered immediately after feedback.

20-item adapted measure of four empowering outcomes, including being better informed, improved acceptance of problems, increased optimism and control over the future, and enhanced self-esteem. All items have the format of a statement that begins with "Through my participation in the study, … ."

次要结局

  • Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck and Steer, 1987)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-Short Form (DASS-21; Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2). Will also be administered immediately before and after feedback.)
  • Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES; Chesney et al., 2006)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2). Will also be administered immediately after feedback.)
  • COPE Inventory (Carver et al., 1989)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (Baer et al., 2006)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Ruminative Responses Scale (RRS; Treynor et al., 2003)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Brief Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire (BEAQ; Gámez et al., 2014)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Emotional Self-Awareness Scale (ESAS; Kauer et al., 2012)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • General, Academic, Social Hassles Scale for Students - Abbreviated version (GASHSS; Blankstein and Flett, 1993; Dunkley et al., 2003)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Brief Frost et al. (1990) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Depressive Experiences Questionnaire - Short Form (DEQ; Rudich et al., 2008)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Brief Slaney et al. (2001) Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Brief Hewitt and Flett (1991) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (HMPS)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II; Bond et al., 2011).(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross and John, 2003)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Test of Negative Social Interactions (TENSE; Finch et al., 1999)(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)
  • Social Provisions Scale (SPS; Cutrona and Russell, 1987).(Measure completed at baseline, at Time 2 (two weeks after baseline), and at Time 3 (two weeks after Time 2).)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

David Dunkley

Associate Professor

McGill University

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验