Pathologische Sorgen sind ungenau definiert. Für die Behandlungsplanung bleiben wichtige Fragen offen: Welche Merkmale sind für die Unterscheidung zwischen behandlungsbedürftigen und nicht behandlungsbedürftigen Sorgen relevant? Welche Art von Sorgen muss wie behandelt werden? Und: Welche Art von Sorgen gilt es eher zu akzeptieren? Wir machen praxisnahe Vorschläge dafür, wie Sorgen mittels einer einfachen Heuristik auch vom Patienten selbst als «pathologisch» identifiziert werden können. Im Sinne eines therapeutischen Arbeitsmodells ergeben sich differentielle Bearbeitungsstrategien, je nachdem, ob es sich um wichtige oder weniger wichtige, auf lösbare oder unlösbare Probleme bezogene sowie angemessene oder überzogene Sorgen handelt. Das vorgestellte Arbeitsblatt zu den Sorgen soll vor allem die wahrgenommene Kontrolle des Patienten stärken und die Psychoedukation zur Generalisierten Angststörung erleichtern. / Pathological worries have not yet been clearly defined. As a consequence, practically relevant questions remain open: Which characteristics distinguish worries relevant for treatment from those which are not? What kind of worries has to be treated in which way? And: What kind of worries is rather to be accepted? We propose a simple rationale which helps the therapist and the patient to identify pathological worries. According to this working model, different treatment strategies result depending on whether worries are central or not, whether they relate to a problem which can be solved or not, and whether they seem proportionate or exaggerated. The presented worksheet is meant to strengthen the perceived control of the patient and to help facilitate psychoeducation for generalised anxiety disorder. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

Background: Worry exposure (WE) is a core element of cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Its efficacy as a stand-alone treatment method (without further cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions) has never been tested.We aimed to examine whether WE alone is as efficacious as the empirically supported stand-alone treatment for GAD, applied relaxation (AR). Methods: In a randomized controlled study, 73 outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD as primary diagnosis were allocated to either WE or AR or a waiting list control group; in a 2nd randomization procedure the waiting list subjects were reallocated to WE or AR. The treatment was manualized (15 sessions with WE or AR), included 6-month and 1-year follow-ups, as well as last observation carried forward and completer analyses, and was controlled for allegiance effects.The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Scale were used as primary outcome measures. Self-report scales of anxiety, worrying and depression including negative metacognition about worrying and thought suppression served as secondary outcome measures. Results: The dropout rate was moderate. The pre-/posttreatment effects were high for the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (standardized mean difference >1) and for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (standardized mean difference >0.87). The proportion of patients reaching high end state functioning was 48% (WE) and 56% (AR). WE and AR did not differ with regard to dropout rate or treatment effects. The treatment effects were stable at 6 month and 1 year follow-up. Conclusion: This is the first study to show that a stand-alone exposure in sensu technique – WE – is efficacious in the treatment of GAD. Both AR and WE seem to represent effective principles of change in GAD. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

Pathologische Sorgen sind ungenau definiert. Für die Behandlungsplanung bleiben wichtige Fragen offen: Welche Merkmale sind für die Unterscheidung zwischen behandlungsbedürftigen und nicht behandlungsbedürftigen Sorgen relevant? Welche Art von Sorgen muss wie behandelt werden? Und: Welche Art von Sorgen gilt es eher zu akzeptieren? Wir machen praxisnahe Vorschläge dafür, wie Sorgen mittels einer einfachen Heuristik auch vom Patienten selbst als «pathologisch» identifiziert werden können. Im Sinne eines therapeutischen Arbeitsmodells ergeben sich differentielle Bearbeitungsstrategien, je nachdem, ob es sich um wichtige oder weniger wichtige, auf lösbare oder unlösbare Probleme bezogene sowie angemessene oder überzogene Sorgen handelt. Das vorgestellte Arbeitsblatt zu den Sorgen soll vor allem die wahrgenommene Kontrolle des Patienten stärken und die Psychoedukation zur Generalisierten Angststörung erleichtern. / Pathological worries have not yet been clearly defined. As a consequence, practically relevant questions remain open: Which characteristics distinguish worries relevant for treatment from those which are not? What kind of worries has to be treated in which way? And: What kind of worries is rather to be accepted? We propose a simple rationale which helps the therapist and the patient to identify pathological worries. According to this working model, different treatment strategies result depending on whether worries are central or not, whether they relate to a problem which can be solved or not, and whether they seem proportionate or exaggerated. The presented worksheet is meant to strengthen the perceived control of the patient and to help facilitate psychoeducation for generalised anxiety disorder. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.

Background: Worry exposure (WE) is a core element of cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Its efficacy as a stand-alone treatment method (without further cognitive-behavioral therapy interventions) has never been tested.We aimed to examine whether WE alone is as efficacious as the empirically supported stand-alone treatment for GAD, applied relaxation (AR). Methods: In a randomized controlled study, 73 outpatients meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD as primary diagnosis were allocated to either WE or AR or a waiting list control group; in a 2nd randomization procedure the waiting list subjects were reallocated to WE or AR. The treatment was manualized (15 sessions with WE or AR), included 6-month and 1-year follow-ups, as well as last observation carried forward and completer analyses, and was controlled for allegiance effects.The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Scale were used as primary outcome measures. Self-report scales of anxiety, worrying and depression including negative metacognition about worrying and thought suppression served as secondary outcome measures. Results: The dropout rate was moderate. The pre-/posttreatment effects were high for the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (standardized mean difference >1) and for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (standardized mean difference >0.87). The proportion of patients reaching high end state functioning was 48% (WE) and 56% (AR). WE and AR did not differ with regard to dropout rate or treatment effects. The treatment effects were stable at 6 month and 1 year follow-up. Conclusion: This is the first study to show that a stand-alone exposure in sensu technique – WE – is efficacious in the treatment of GAD. Both AR and WE seem to represent effective principles of change in GAD. / Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG-geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.