| 1. |
- McEvoy, Peter M., et al.
(författare)
-
Imagery-enhanced v. verbally-based group cognitive behavior therapy for social anxiety disorder : a randomized clinical trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Psychological Medicine. - : Cambridge University Press. - 0033-2917 .- 1469-8978. ; 52:7, s. 1277-1286
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundCognitive behavior therapy (CBT) is effective for most patients with a social anxiety disorder (SAD) but a substantial proportion fails to remit. Experimental and clinical research suggests that enhancing CBT using imagery-based techniques could improve outcomes. It was hypothesized that imagery-enhanced CBT (IE-CBT) would be superior to verbally-based CBT (VB-CBT) on pre-registered outcomes.MethodsA randomized controlled trial of IE-CBT v. VB-CBT for social anxiety was completed in a community mental health clinic setting. Participants were randomized to IE (n = 53) or VB (n = 54) CBT, with 1-month (primary end point) and 6-month follow-up assessments. Participants completed 12, 2-hour, weekly sessions of IE-CBT or VB-CBT plus 1-month follow-up.ResultsIntention to treat analyses showed very large within-treatment effect sizes on the social interaction anxiety at all time points (ds = 2.09-2.62), with no between-treatment differences on this outcome or clinician-rated severity [1-month OR = 1.45 (0.45, 4.62), p = 0.53; 6-month OR = 1.31 (0.42, 4.08), p = 0.65], SAD remission (1-month: IE = 61.04%, VB = 55.09%, p = 0.59); 6-month: IE = 58.73%, VB = 61.89%, p = 0.77), or secondary outcomes. Three adverse events were noted (substance abuse, n = 1 in IE-CBT; temporary increase in suicide risk, n = 1 in each condition, with one being withdrawn at 1-month follow-up).ConclusionsGroup IE-CBT and VB-CBT were safe and there were no significant differences in outcomes. Both treatments were associated with very large within-group effect sizes and the majority of patients remitted following treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Campbell, Bruce M., et al.
(författare)
-
Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Ecology and Society. - 1708-3087. ; 22:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We explore the role of agriculture in destabilizing the Earth system at the planetary scale, through examining nine planetary boundaries, or safe limits: land-system change, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows, biosphere integrity, climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, and introduction of novel entities. Two planetary boundaries have been fully transgressed, i.e., are at high risk, biosphere integrity and biogeochemical flows, and agriculture has been the major driver of the transgression. Three are in a zone of uncertainty i.e., at increasing risk, with agriculture the major driver of two of those, land-system change and freshwater use, and a significant contributor to the third, climate change. Agriculture is also a significant or major contributor to change for many of those planetary boundaries still in the safe zone. To reduce the role of agriculture in transgressing planetary boundaries, many interventions will be needed, including those in broader food systems.
|
|
| 3. |
- Norström, Albert, et al.
(författare)
-
Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature Sustainability. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2398-9629. ; 3:3, s. 182-190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research practice, funding agencies and global science organizations suggest that research aimed at addressing sustainability challenges is most effective when 'co-produced' by academics and non-academics. Co-production promises to address the complex nature of contemporary sustainability challenges better than more traditional scientific approaches. But definitions of knowledge co-production are diverse and often contradictory. We propose a set of four general principles that underlie high-quality knowledge co-production for sustainability research. Using these principles, we offer practical guidance on how to engage in meaningful co-productive practices, and how to evaluate their quality and success. Research addressing sustainability issues is more effective if 'co-produced' by academics and non-academics, but definitions of co-production vary. This Perspective presents four knowledge co-production principles for sustainability research and guides on how to engage in co-productive practices.
|
|
