Explore the vast range of titles available.

: A category of disorders frequently associated with a history of trauma are the dissociative disorders, of which Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is the most severe and chronic form. DID is associated with high levels of impairment, treatment utilization, and treatment costs, yet systematic research into treatment effects is scarce. Practice-based clinical guidelines advise a phase-based approach which is lengthy and has rather high reported dropout rates. Therefore, in the current proposal the efficacy of an alternative treatment for DID (i.e. schema therapy) is tested. : The aim of this study is to critically test the effectiveness of schema therapy for DID patients, for whom at present no evidence-based treatment is available. : In light of the low prevalence of DID, and the proposed treatment length of three years, a case series experimental approach is used (non-concurrent multiple baseline design). Ten outpatients are included, who are diagnosed with DID by an independent rater using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D-R), which is double-checked by another independent expert. Primary outcomes are a (bi)weekly assessed state measure of dissociative symptoms, a pre-, post- and follow-up measure of the presence of the DID diagnosis, and drop-out rate. Secondary outcomes include various measures of trait dissociative symptoms, comorbid symptomatology, and global symptomatic distress. : Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4496.

Background: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is one of the greatest problems with which cancer survivors have to deal. High levels of FCR are characterized by intrusive thoughts about cancer-related events and re-experiencing these events, avoidance of reminders of cancer, and hypervigilance, similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy focuses on these images and memories. It is effective in reducing PTSD and may be effective in reducing high levels of FCR. Objective: The aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of EMDR for severe FCR in breast and colorectal cancer survivors. Method: A multiple-baseline single-case experimental design (n = 8) was used. Daily repeated measurements for FCR were taken during the baseline phase and treatment phase, post-treatment, and at the 3 month follow-up. Participants answered the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) and the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory, Dutch version (FCRI-NL) five times, i.e. at the start and at the end of each phase (baseline, treatment, post-treatment, and follow-up). The study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NL8223). Results: Visual analysis and effect size calculation by Tau-U were executed for the daily questionnaire on FCR. The weighted average Tau-U score was .63 (p < .01) for baseline versus post-treatment, indicating large change, and .53 (p < .01) between baseline and follow-up, indicating moderate change. The scores on the CWS and FCRI-NL-SF decreased significantly from baseline to follow-up. Conclusion: The results seem promising for EMDR therapy as a potentially effective treatment for FCR. Further research is recommended. Patients who experience high fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) often have intrusive memories and images about (future) cancer-related events. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy can focus on these intrusions. EMDR therapy is found to be a promising therapy for patients experiencing high FCR.

Background: A category of disorders frequently associated with a history of trauma are the dissociative disorders, of which Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is the most severe and chronic form. DID is associated with high levels of impairment, treatment utilization, and treatment costs, yet systematic research into treatment effects is scarce. Practice-based clinical guidelines advise a phase-based approach which is lengthy and has rather high reported dropout rates. Therefore, in the current proposal the efficacy of an alternative treatment for DID (i.e. schema therapy) is tested. Objective: The aim of this study is to critically test the effectiveness of schema therapy for DID patients, for whom at present no evidence-based treatment is available. Method: In light of the low prevalence of DID, and the proposed treatment length of three years, a case series experimental approach is used (non-concurrent multiple baseline design). Ten outpatients are included, who are diagnosed with DID by an independent rater using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D-R), which is double-checked by another independent expert. Primary outcomes are a (bi)weekly assessed state measure of dissociative symptoms, a pre-, post- and follow-up measure of the presence of the DID diagnosis, and drop-out rate. Secondary outcomes include various measures of trait dissociative symptoms, comorbid symptomatology, and global symptomatic distress. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR4496 * At present, no evidence-based treatment is available for DID patients.* Practice-based clinical guidelines advise a phase-based approach.* Drawback of this phase-based approach is its substantial average length and dropout rates.* In the current study, the efficacy of an alternative approach to treatment for DID (i.e. schema therapy) is tested using a case series design.

Statistical power was estimated for 3 randomization tests used with multiple-baseline designs. In 1 test, participants were randomly assigned to baseline conditions; in the 2nd, intervention points were randomly assigned; and in the 3rd, the authors used both forms of random assignment. Power was studied for several series lengths (N = 10, 20, 30), several effect sizes (d = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0), and several levels of autocorrelation among the errors (p 1 = 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, and .5). Power was found to be similar among the 3 tests. Power was low for effect sizes of 0.5 and 1.0 but was often adequate (> .80) for effect sizes of 1.5 and 2.0.