Volume 12 - Articles-1401
MEJDS (2022) 12: 234 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.IAU.B.REC.1401.001
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Beiranvand N, Chinaveh M, Bahrami M. Comparing the Effectiveness of Compassion Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitization and Its Reprocessing on Coping Self-efficacy of Patients Recovered From COVID-19. MEJDS 2022; 12 :234-234
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2985-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-2985-en.html
1- PhD Student, Department of Psychology, Borujerd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Borujerd, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Pishtazan Higher Education Institute, Shiraz, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Pishtazan Higher Education Institute, Shiraz, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract: (867 Views)
Abstract
Background & Objectives: Coping self–efficacy enables people to express more adaptive coping behaviors by regulating their emotions against environmental and social stress. Thus, people will use more coping skills and be less vulnerable to stress when facing problems and challenging situations over time. Studies emphasize providing special care for the recovered people from COVID–19 due to the physical and psychological damage caused by the disease. Compassion therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy are the interventions improving the psychological state in critical situations. Due to the significant number of people who recovered from coronavirus in Iran and its chronic physiological and psychological consequences, and the essential role of coping self–efficacy on the person for months after recovery, the present study aims to compare the effects of compassion therapy and EMDR on the coping self–efficacy of patients recovered from the coronavirus.
Methods: The present study was quasi–experimental with a pretest–posttest and a 2–month follow–up design with a control group. The study's statistical population included all the patients who recovered from coronavirus and were discharged from the ICUs of Shohaday–e Ashayer and Social Security hospitals in Khoramabad City, Iran, from November to the end of December 2020. The inclusion criteria included an age range of 20 to 40 years, minimum education of diploma, minimum stay of 10 days in the ICU, more than 1 month passed since the patient's discharge, not taking psychotropic or psychiatric drugs, informed consent to participate in the study, and obtaining a score lower than the mean in the Coping Self–Efficacy Questionnaire (Chesney et al., 2006). In this study, 45 people were included using a purposeful sampling method. They were randomly divided into three groups (two experimental groups and one control group, with 15 people in each group). The first intervention group received 8 sessions of compassion therapy intervention, and the second intervention group received 5 sessions of EMDR therapy intervention. The control group was placed on the intervention waiting list. The data collection tools included a demographic information questionnaire and a Coping Self–Efficacy Questionnaire (Chesney et al., 2006) used in three stages: pretest, posttest, and follow–up. Finally, the obtained data were analyzed using descriptive (mean, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (analysis of variance with repeated measurements and Bonferroni post hoc test) in SPSS–25 software. The significance level of the tests was considered at 0.05.
Results: The results showed significant effects of time, group, and the interaction of time and group on the coping self–efficacy variable (p<0.001). The mean scores of coping self–efficacy in the compassion therapy group (p=0.010) and EMDR (p<0.001) were significantly higher than the control group. However, there was no significant difference between the experimental groups (p=0.825). In both experimental groups, a significant difference was observed in the mean scores of coping self–efficacy between the pretest and posttest (p<0.001) and between the pretest and follow–up (p<0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between the posttest and the follow–up, indicating the persistence of the effectiveness of the interventions in the follow–up phase (p=0.496).
Conclusion: According to the findings, no significant difference was found between the effects of compassion therapy and EMDR. Therefore, they can be used as effective interventions to increase coping self–efficacy and improve the mental health of patients recovered from coronavirus.
Background & Objectives: Coping self–efficacy enables people to express more adaptive coping behaviors by regulating their emotions against environmental and social stress. Thus, people will use more coping skills and be less vulnerable to stress when facing problems and challenging situations over time. Studies emphasize providing special care for the recovered people from COVID–19 due to the physical and psychological damage caused by the disease. Compassion therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy are the interventions improving the psychological state in critical situations. Due to the significant number of people who recovered from coronavirus in Iran and its chronic physiological and psychological consequences, and the essential role of coping self–efficacy on the person for months after recovery, the present study aims to compare the effects of compassion therapy and EMDR on the coping self–efficacy of patients recovered from the coronavirus.
Methods: The present study was quasi–experimental with a pretest–posttest and a 2–month follow–up design with a control group. The study's statistical population included all the patients who recovered from coronavirus and were discharged from the ICUs of Shohaday–e Ashayer and Social Security hospitals in Khoramabad City, Iran, from November to the end of December 2020. The inclusion criteria included an age range of 20 to 40 years, minimum education of diploma, minimum stay of 10 days in the ICU, more than 1 month passed since the patient's discharge, not taking psychotropic or psychiatric drugs, informed consent to participate in the study, and obtaining a score lower than the mean in the Coping Self–Efficacy Questionnaire (Chesney et al., 2006). In this study, 45 people were included using a purposeful sampling method. They were randomly divided into three groups (two experimental groups and one control group, with 15 people in each group). The first intervention group received 8 sessions of compassion therapy intervention, and the second intervention group received 5 sessions of EMDR therapy intervention. The control group was placed on the intervention waiting list. The data collection tools included a demographic information questionnaire and a Coping Self–Efficacy Questionnaire (Chesney et al., 2006) used in three stages: pretest, posttest, and follow–up. Finally, the obtained data were analyzed using descriptive (mean, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (analysis of variance with repeated measurements and Bonferroni post hoc test) in SPSS–25 software. The significance level of the tests was considered at 0.05.
Results: The results showed significant effects of time, group, and the interaction of time and group on the coping self–efficacy variable (p<0.001). The mean scores of coping self–efficacy in the compassion therapy group (p=0.010) and EMDR (p<0.001) were significantly higher than the control group. However, there was no significant difference between the experimental groups (p=0.825). In both experimental groups, a significant difference was observed in the mean scores of coping self–efficacy between the pretest and posttest (p<0.001) and between the pretest and follow–up (p<0.001). However, no significant difference was observed between the posttest and the follow–up, indicating the persistence of the effectiveness of the interventions in the follow–up phase (p=0.496).
Conclusion: According to the findings, no significant difference was found between the effects of compassion therapy and EMDR. Therefore, they can be used as effective interventions to increase coping self–efficacy and improve the mental health of patients recovered from coronavirus.
Keywords: Compassion therapy, Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), Coping self–efficacy, Patients recovered from coronavirus
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Gao GF. From "A" IV to "Z" IKV: attacks from emerging and re-emerging pathogens. Cell. 2018;172(6):1157–9. [DOI]
2. Bolton DJ, Robertson LJ. Mental health disorders associated with foodborne pathogens. J Food Prot. 2016;79(11):2005–17. [DOI]
3. Banerjee D, Nair VS. Handling the Covid-19 pandemic: proposing a community based toolkit for psycho-social management and preparedness. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102152. [DOI]
4. Mohammadi N, Sadri Damirchi E, Sheykholeslami A, Ghamari Givi H. The efficacy of crisis intervention program on adaptive and maladaptive regulation strategies of people with coronary heart disease crisis. Journal of Psychological Science. 2022;21(109):107–22. [Persian] [DOI]
5. Rafique H. Covid 19 and changing facets of stress: a psychological study of stress-oriented people. Pakistan Social Sciences Review. 2020;4(3):734–48. [DOI]
6. Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, et al. The psychological impact of the Covid-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. 2020;287:112934. [DOI]
7. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912–20. [DOI]
8. Chesney MA, Neilands TB, Chambers DB, Taylor JM, Folkman S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. Br J Health Psychol. 2006;11(3):421–37. [DOI]
9. Rodkjaer L, Chesney MA, Lomborg K, Ostergaard L, Laursen T, Sodemann M. HIV-infected individuals with high coping self-efficacy are less likely to report depressive symptoms: a cross-sectional study from Denmark. Int J Infect Dis. 2014;22:67–72. [DOI]
10. Bosmans MWG, van der Velden PG. Longitudinal interplay between posttraumatic stress symptoms and coping self-efficacy: a four-wave prospective study. Soc Sci Med. 2015;134:23–9. [DOI]
11. Bosmans MWG, Van Der Knaap LM, Van Der Velden PG. The predictive value of trauma-related coping self-efficacy for posttraumatic stress symptoms: differences between treatment-seeking and non–treatment-seeking victims. Psychol Trauma. 2016;8(2):241–8. [DOI]
12. Luszczynska A, Benight CC, Cieslak R. Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma: a systematic review. European Psychologist. 2009;14(1):51–62. [DOI]
13. Bosmans MWG, Benight CC, Van Der Knaap LM, Winkel FW, Van Der Velden PG. The associations between coping self-efficacy and posttraumatic stress symptoms 10 years post disaster: differences between men and women. J Trauma Stress. 2013;26(2):184–91. [DOI]
14. Benight CC, Cieslak R, Molton IR, Johnson LE. Self-evaluative appraisals of coping capability and posttraumatic distress following motor vehicle accidents. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76(4):677–85. [DOI]
15. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.
16. Miller SM, Mangan CE. Interacting effects of information and coping style in adapting to gynecologic stress: should the doctor tell all? J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;45(1):223–36. [DOI]
17. Averill JR. Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress. Psychological Bull. 1973;80(4):286–303. [DOI]
18. García-Campayo J, Navarro-Gil M, Demarzo M. Attachment-based compassion therapy. Mindfulness & Compassion. 2016;1(2):68–74. [DOI]
19. Lack S, Brown R, Kinser PA. An integrative review of yoga and mindfulness-based approaches for children and adolescents with asthma. J Pediatr Nurs. 2020;52:76–81. [DOI]
20. Krieger T, Reber F, von Glutz B, Urech A, Moser CT, Schulz A, et al. An internet-based compassion-focused intervention for increased self-criticism: a randomized controlled trial. Behav Ther. 2019;50(2):430–45. [DOI]
21. Solimanpour mahdi, Pirkhaefi A, Zahrakar kianoosh. Comparison of the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and compassion-focused therapy (CFT) on quality of life in patients with vitiligo. Journal of Psychological Science. 2022;21(113):987–1004. [Persian] [DOI]
22. Wilson AC, Mackintosh K, Power K, Chan SWY. Effectiveness of self-compassion related therapies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness. 2019;10(6):979–95. [DOI]
23. Sommers-Spijkerman MPJ, Trompetter HR, Schreurs KMG, Bohlmeijer ET. Compassion-focused therapy as guided self-help for enhancing public mental health: a randomized controlled trial. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86(2):101–15. [DOI]
24. Bluth K, Blanton PW. The influence of self-compassion on emotional well-being among early and older adolescent males and females. J Posit Psychol. 2015;10(3):219–30. [DOI]
25. Hemmtian Khayat D, Nejat H, Samari AA, Ormaz E. Comparison of the effectiveness of dialectical behavior therapy and compassion therapy on anxiety, disturbance tolerance and emotional regulation in Covid-19 survivors. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2022;29(4):160–8. [Persian] [Article]
26. Shams G, Pashang S, Sedaghat M. Comparison of the effectiveness of compassion-based therapy and reality therapy on self-efficacy of patients with multiple sclerosis. J Prevent Med. 2021;8(1):80–70. [Persian] [DOI]
27. Wu X. The effectiveness of compassion-focused group therapy on perceived stress in the Covid-19 epidemic among the academic women. Argentina Review of Psychological Clinic. 2021;30(2):633–9. [DOI]
28. Rezayi S, Khanjani M. The effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and cognitive reprocessing intervention (EMDR) on improving the quality of life and reducing the guilt feeling in parents of children with low-functioning autism. Family Research. 2017;13(3):461–75. [Persian] [Article]
29. Littel M, Kenemans JL, Baas JMP, Logemann HNA, Rijken N, Remijn M, et al. The effects of β-adrenergic blockade on the degrading effects of eye movements on negative autobiographical memories. Biol Psychiatry. 2017;82(8):587–93. [DOI]
30. Auren TJB, Klæth JR, Jensen AG, Solem S. Intensive outpatient treatment for PTSD: an open trial combining prolonged exposure therapy, EMDR, and physical activity. Eur J Psychotraumato. 2022;13(2):2128048. [DOI]
31. Brynhildsvoll Auren TJ, Gjerde Jensen A, Rendum Klæth J, Maksic E, Solem S. Intensive outpatient treatment for PTSD: a pilot feasibility study combining prolonged exposure therapy, EMDR, physical activity, and psychoeducation. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021;12(1):1917878. [DOI]
32. Encinas M, Osorio A, Jarero I, Givaudan M. Randomized controlled clinical trial on the provision of the EMDR-PRECI to Family Caregivers of Patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Psychology and Behavioral Science. 2019;11(1):1–8. [DOI]
33. Abdoli Bidhendi MR, Rafieinia P, Pourhosein R, Sabahi P, Shahmansouri N. The comparison of the efficacy of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing and progressive counting on anxiety, depression, and stress in patients with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Rooyesh-e-Ravanshenasi Journal. 2021;10(3):65–76. [Persian] [Article]
34. Fotovvat N, Moradi-Baglouee M, Soleimani MA, Mafi M. Effect of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing on death anxiety of gastrointestinal cancer patients in Qazvin hospital in 2018: a randomized clinical trial. Koomesh. 2021;23(2):183–91. [Persian] [DOI]
35. Ahmadizadeh MJ, Eskandari H, Falsafinejad MR, Borjali A. Comparison the effectiveness of «cognitive-behavioral» and «eye movement desensitization reprocessing» treatment models on patients with war post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Military Medicine. 2010;12(3)173–8. [Persian] [Article]
36. Bahramiyan F, Morovati Z, Yousefi Afrashteh M, Amiri M. Reliability, validity, and factorial analysis of Coping Self-Efficacy Scale. Clinical Psychology & Personality. 2017;15(2):215–26. [Persian] [Article]
37. Gilbert P. Compassion focused therapy the CBT distinctive features series. Esbati M, Feizi A. (Persian translator). Tehran: Ebnesina Pub; 2020.
38. Shapiro FE. Emdr as an integrative psychotherapy approach: experts of diverse orientations explore the paradigm prism. American Psychological Association; 2002.
39. Hekmatiyanfard S, Rajabi S, Hoseini FS. The effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy on the anxiety speech and educational self-efficacy in students with social anxiety. Culture Counseling. 2021;12(45):269–94. [Persian] [Article]
40. Cheli S, Cavalletti V, Petrocchi N. An online compassion-focused crisis intervention during COVID-19 lockdown: a cases series on patients at high risk for psychosis. Psychosis. 2020;12(4):359–62. [DOI]
41. Shapiro F. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy. Third edition. New York: Guilford Press; 2018.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
