Hannah E Frank1, Emily M Becker-Haimes2, Lara S Rifkin3, Lesley A Norris3, Thomas H Ollendick4, Thomas M Olino3, Hilary E Kratz5, Rinad S Beidas6, Philip C Kendall3. 1. Department of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. Electronic address: hannah.frank@temple.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA; Hall-Mercer Community Mental Health Center, 245 S. 8th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 N 13th St., Philadelphia, PA, 19122, USA. 4. Child Study Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 460 Turner St., Suite 207, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, La Salle University, 1900 W. Olney Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19141, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA; Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA; Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard David Institute of Health Economics (PISCE @LDI), 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although exposure is a key evidence-based intervention for anxiety, it is infrequently used in clinical settings. This study employed a novel training strategy, experiential learning, to improve exposure implementation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of experiential training and preliminary training effectiveness. METHODS:Participants were 28 therapists who were randomized to (a) training-as-usual or (b) experiential training (training-as-usual plus a one-session treatment for fear of spiders). Workshops lasted one day and were followed by three months of weekly consultation. RESULTS:Experiential training was viewed as feasible and acceptable. Participants, including those who were fearful of spiders, had a positive response to the training and reported it to be useful. There was a significant increase in the number of exposures used by therapists receiving experiential training compared to training-as-usual at 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A one-day training resulted in significant improvements in knowledge, attitudes toward exposure, and self-efficacy in using exposure. Preliminary findings suggest that experiential training resulted in greater use of exposure post-training compared to training-as-usual. Results provide evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of experiential training as a strategy to increase the use of evidence-based interventions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although exposure is a key evidence-based intervention for anxiety, it is infrequently used in clinical settings. This study employed a novel training strategy, experiential learning, to improve exposure implementation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of experiential training and preliminary training effectiveness. METHODS:Participants were 28 therapists who were randomized to (a) training-as-usual or (b) experiential training (training-as-usual plus a one-session treatment for fear of spiders). Workshops lasted one day and were followed by three months of weekly consultation. RESULTS: Experiential training was viewed as feasible and acceptable. Participants, including those who were fearful of spiders, had a positive response to the training and reported it to be useful. There was a significant increase in the number of exposures used by therapists receiving experiential training compared to training-as-usual at 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A one-day training resulted in significant improvements in knowledge, attitudes toward exposure, and self-efficacy in using exposure. Preliminary findings suggest that experiential training resulted in greater use of exposure post-training compared to training-as-usual. Results provide evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of experiential training as a strategy to increase the use of evidence-based interventions.
Authors: Brian Shiner; Leonard W D'Avolio; Thien M Nguyen; Maha H Zayed; Yinong Young-Xu; Rani A Desai; Paula P Schnurr; Louis D Fiore; Bradley V Watts Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2013-07
Authors: Tara S Peris; Scott N Compton; Philip C Kendall; Boris Birmaher; Joel Sherrill; John March; Elizabeth Gosch; Golda Ginsburg; Moira Rynn; James T McCracken; Courtney P Keeton; Dara Sakolsky; Cynthia Suveg; Sasha Aschenbrand; Daniel Almirall; Satish Iyengar; John T Walkup; Anne Marie Albano; John Piacentini Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2014-12-08
Authors: Julie M Edmunds; Philip C Kendall; Vanesa A Ringle; Kendra L Read; Douglas M Brodman; Sandra S Pimentel; Rinad S Beidas Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2013-11
Authors: Thomas H Ollendick; Lars-Göran Ost; Lena Reuterskiöld; Natalie Costa; Rio Cederlund; Cristian Sirbu; Thompson E Davis; Matthew A Jarrett Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2009-06
Authors: Kate Wolitzky-Taylor; Bowen Chung; Sarah Kate Bearman; Joanna Arch; Jason Grossman; Karissa Fenwick; Rebecca Lengnick-Hall; Jeanne Miranda Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2018-03-05
Authors: Briana S Last; Simone H Schriger; Carter E Timon; Hannah E Frank; Alison M Buttenheim; Brittany N Rudd; Sara Fernandez-Marcote; Carrie Comeau; Sosunmolu Shoyinka; Rinad S Beidas Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2021-01-11