Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 221 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Faryadiyan P, Bermas H, Salehi M, Pashang S. Comparing the Effects of Mindfulness-Based Group Therapy and Group Metacognitive Therapy on Emotion Regulation in Patients Recovered From Drug Use Disorders. MEJDS 2020; 10 :221-221
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1697-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1697-en.html
1- Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University
2- Department of Psychology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University
3- Department of Psychology, Tehran Center Branch, Islamic Azad University
2- Department of Psychology, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University
3- Department of Psychology, Tehran Center Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract: (1243 Views)
Background & Objectives: Substance dependence is among the most serious problems in societies. The current therapies provide a comprehensive working model wherein substance use is viewed as a means of coping with emotion dysregulation. The primary goal of mindfulness is to help patients tolerate uncomfortable states, like craving, and to experience difficult emotions without automatically reacting. An approach to the etiology and treatment of numerous recently–considered mental disorders is the Wells metacognitive model or the self–regulatory executive function theory model. This approach has paid special attention to metacognition in understanding and treating mental health disorders. Studies examining metacognitions in substance abusers suggested the main reason for substance abuse to be the regulation of various cognitions and emotions. The present study aimed to compare the effects of Group Metacognitive Therapy (GMCT) and Mindfulness–based Group Therapy (MGT) on Emotion Regulation (ER) in recovered patients from Drug Use Disorders (DUDs).
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with a pretest–posttest–follow–up and a control group design. The statistical population was all patients recovered from DUDs referring to DUDs treatment centers in Varamin City, Iran, in 2019. The total number of individuals was unknown for reasons, like patient confidentiality; however, using targeted and voluntary sampling, 54 individuals who met the inclusion criteria were selected by Wilson Van Voorhis and Morgan (2007) as the minimum sample size for experimental and quasi–experimental research considering the odds of sample loss. Then, they were randomly divided into three groups by homogenization. Due to absence from the sessions and sample dropout, the total number of samples reached 39 (n=13/group). The inclusion criteria of the study were the age of >18 years; the diagnosis of DUDs based on The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–5 (DSM–5); more than a week past detoxification, and not receiving pharmacotherapy for other biopsychological illnesses. The exclusion criteria included presenting the symptoms of psychosis and serious suicidal ideation. The research instrument was the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Garnefski et al., 2001). GMCT and MGT were presented in eight 90–minute sessions in 2 months. GMCT and MGT sessions were based on Wells’s metacognitive therapy package (2009) and Williams and Kraft’s mindfulness package (2012), respectively. The obtained data were analyzed by repeated–measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni posthoc test in SPSS at the significance level of 0.05.
Results: MGT increased the mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies at posttest (3.10±0.10) and follow–up (3.17±0.21), compared to the pretest stage (2.73±0.22). GMCT improved the mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies at posttest (2.97±0.11) and follow–up (2.99±0.24), compared to the pretest stage (2.77±0.010) (p<0.001). MGT reduced the mean±SD scores of negative ER strategies at posttest (3.07±0.14) and follow–up (3.12±0.24), in comparison to the pretest stage (3.36±0.16). GMCT reduced the mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies at posttest (3.05±0.21) and follow–up (3.01±0.25), compared to the pretest stage (3.28±0.29) (p<0.001). The mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies increased at posttest (2.97±0.023) and follow–up (2.96±0.041) stages, in comparison to the pretest stage (2.75±0.028) (p<0.001). The mean±SD scores of negative ER strategies decreased at posttest (3.16±0.034) and follow–up (3.19±0.048) stages, compared to the pretest stage (3.33±0.053) (p=0.029). The Bonferroni posthoc test data revealed no significant difference between the mean values of the GMCT and the MGT groups (p=0.246); there were significant differences between the mean scores of the GMCT and the control groups (p=0.042), and the MGT and the control groups (p<0.001) concerning positive ER strategies, indicating the positive effect of GMCT and MGT on positive ER strategies. However, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the GMCT and MGT groups (p=0.858); there were significant differences between the mean values of the GMCT and the control groups (p<0.001) as well as the MGT and the control groups (p=0.028) respecting negative ER strategies, reflecting the positive effects of GMCT and MGT on negative ER strategies.
Conclusion: Based on these findings, GMCT and MGT were effective in improving ER strategies in recovered patients from DUDs.
Methods: This was a quasi–experimental study with a pretest–posttest–follow–up and a control group design. The statistical population was all patients recovered from DUDs referring to DUDs treatment centers in Varamin City, Iran, in 2019. The total number of individuals was unknown for reasons, like patient confidentiality; however, using targeted and voluntary sampling, 54 individuals who met the inclusion criteria were selected by Wilson Van Voorhis and Morgan (2007) as the minimum sample size for experimental and quasi–experimental research considering the odds of sample loss. Then, they were randomly divided into three groups by homogenization. Due to absence from the sessions and sample dropout, the total number of samples reached 39 (n=13/group). The inclusion criteria of the study were the age of >18 years; the diagnosis of DUDs based on The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–5 (DSM–5); more than a week past detoxification, and not receiving pharmacotherapy for other biopsychological illnesses. The exclusion criteria included presenting the symptoms of psychosis and serious suicidal ideation. The research instrument was the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (Garnefski et al., 2001). GMCT and MGT were presented in eight 90–minute sessions in 2 months. GMCT and MGT sessions were based on Wells’s metacognitive therapy package (2009) and Williams and Kraft’s mindfulness package (2012), respectively. The obtained data were analyzed by repeated–measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni posthoc test in SPSS at the significance level of 0.05.
Results: MGT increased the mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies at posttest (3.10±0.10) and follow–up (3.17±0.21), compared to the pretest stage (2.73±0.22). GMCT improved the mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies at posttest (2.97±0.11) and follow–up (2.99±0.24), compared to the pretest stage (2.77±0.010) (p<0.001). MGT reduced the mean±SD scores of negative ER strategies at posttest (3.07±0.14) and follow–up (3.12±0.24), in comparison to the pretest stage (3.36±0.16). GMCT reduced the mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies at posttest (3.05±0.21) and follow–up (3.01±0.25), compared to the pretest stage (3.28±0.29) (p<0.001). The mean±SD scores of positive ER strategies increased at posttest (2.97±0.023) and follow–up (2.96±0.041) stages, in comparison to the pretest stage (2.75±0.028) (p<0.001). The mean±SD scores of negative ER strategies decreased at posttest (3.16±0.034) and follow–up (3.19±0.048) stages, compared to the pretest stage (3.33±0.053) (p=0.029). The Bonferroni posthoc test data revealed no significant difference between the mean values of the GMCT and the MGT groups (p=0.246); there were significant differences between the mean scores of the GMCT and the control groups (p=0.042), and the MGT and the control groups (p<0.001) concerning positive ER strategies, indicating the positive effect of GMCT and MGT on positive ER strategies. However, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the GMCT and MGT groups (p=0.858); there were significant differences between the mean values of the GMCT and the control groups (p<0.001) as well as the MGT and the control groups (p=0.028) respecting negative ER strategies, reflecting the positive effects of GMCT and MGT on negative ER strategies.
Conclusion: Based on these findings, GMCT and MGT were effective in improving ER strategies in recovered patients from DUDs.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Zou Z, Wang H, d'Oleire Uquillas F, Wang X, Ding J, Chen H. Definition of substance and non-substance addiction. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1010:21–41. [DOI]
2. Khakpour M, Afrooz G, Ghanbari Hashemabad B, Rejaee A, Ghobari bonab B, Mehrafarid M. Predicting of severity of addiction from temperament and character features in individuals with drug addiction. Journal of North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences. 2016;8(2):257–69. [Persian] [Article]
3. Ghaedamini Harouni G, Bahreini Boroujeni M, MirShah Jaafari SE, Sepehri Broujeni K. Effectiveness of four preventive methods on attitudes toward drug abuse and mental health among high school boys. Research in Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences. 2017;7(1):51–64. [Persian] [DOI]
4. Najafi M, Mohammadifar MA, Abdollahi M. Emotional dysfunction and tendency to substance abuse: the role of emotion regulation, distress tolerance and sensation seeking. Social Health and Addiction. 2015;29(5):53–68. [Persian]
5. Nedaei A, Paghoosh A, Sadeghi Hosnijeh A. Relationship between coping strategies and quality of life: mediating role of cognitive emotion regulation skills. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2016;8(4):35–48. [Persian] [DOI]
6. Esmaily S, Tabatabaee SM, Afrooz Gh. Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral therapy on cognitive - emotion regulation and attentional control among addicted individuals. Journal of Applied Psycological Research Quarterly. 2015;6(3):133–42. [Persian]
7. Potthoff S, Garnefski N, Miklósi M, Ubbiali A, Domínguez-Sánchez FJ, Martins EC, et al. Cognitive emotion regulation and psychopathology across cultures: a comparison between six European countries. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;98:218–24. [DOI]
8. Garnefski N, Koopman H, Kraaij V, ten Cate R. Brief report: cognitive emotion regulation strategies and psychological adjustment in adolescents with a chronic disease. Journal of Adolescence. 2009;32(2):449–54. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.01.003
9. Samani S, Sadeghi L. Psychometric properties of the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire. Journal of Psychological Models and Methods. 2010;1(1):51–62. [Persian]
10. Aazami Y, Sohrabi F, Borjali A, Chopan H. The effectiveness of teaching emotion regulation based on gross model on reducing anger in drug-dependent people. Journal of Culture Counseling. 2014;4(16):53–68. [Persian] [Article]
11. Caselli G, Martino F, Spada MM, Wells A. Metacognitive therapy for alcohol use disorder: a systematic case series. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2619. [DOI]
12. Narayanan G, Naaz S. A Transdiagnostic Approach to Interventions in Addictive Disorders- Third wave therapies and other current interventions. Indian J Psychiatry. 2018;60(Suppl 4):S522–s8.
13. Hopwood CJ, Schade N, Matusiewicz A, Daughters SB, Lejuez CW. Emotion regulation promotes persistence in a residential substance abuse treatment. Substance Use & Misuse. 2015;50(2):251–6. [DOI]
14. Khanna S, Greeson JM. A narrative review of yoga and mindfulness as complementary therapies for addiction. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. 2013;21(3):244–52. [DOI]
15. Wilson JM, Weiss A, Shook NJ. Mindfulness, self-compassion, and savoring: factors that explain the relation between perceived social support and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020;152:109568. [DOI]
16. Mohammadi S, Imani S, Sadeghi Pouya F. Comparison of the components of mindfulness on stimulant and opiate addicts. Iranian South Medical Journal. 2016;19(3):446–56. [Persian] [DOI]
17. Kazemian S. The effect of mindfulness based cognitive therapy on general health of volunteer addicts. Research in Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;4(1):181–92. [Presian] [Article]
18. Farnam A, Borjali A, Sohrabi F, Falsafinejad M. The effectiveness of the mindfulness based relapse prevention (MBRP) model on relapse prevention and coping skills enhancement in people with substance dependency. Journal of Clinical Psychology Studies. 2014;4(16):79–99. [Persian] [Article]
19. Habibi M, Imani S, Pashaei S, Zahiri Sorori M, Mirzaee J, Zare M. Effectiveness of mindfulness treatment on quality of life in opium abusers: promotion of the mental and physical health. Quarterly Journal of Health Psychology. 2013;2(5):63–81. [Persian] [Article]
20. Sadri Damirchi E, Asadi shishegaran S, Esmaili Ghazivalooi F. Effectiveness of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in craving, dependency, and cognitive emotion regulation in drug-dependent women. Research on Addiction. 2017;11(43):51–69. [Persian] [Article]
21. Zolfaghari H, Miri M, Mokhtarpour H. The effectiveness of metacognitive therapy on cognitive deficits in elderly with substance use. Aging Psychology. 2015;1(2):11–21. [Persian] https://jap.razi.ac.ir/m/article_292.html?lang-en
22. Normann N, Morina N. The efficacy of metacognitive therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2211. [DOI]
23. Lysaker PH, Gagen E, Moritz S, Schweitzer R. Metacognitive approaches to the treatment of psychosis: a comparison of four approaches. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2018;11:341–51. [DOI]
24. Ipek OU, Yavuz KF, Ulusoy S, Sahin O, Kurt E. Metacognitive and meta-emotional styles in patients with alcohol and the other substance dependence. Int J High Risk Behav Addict. 2015;4(3):e24553. [DOI]
25. Spada MM, Nikcevic AV, Moneta GB, Wells A. Metacognition as a mediator of the relationship between emotion and smoking dependence. Addictive Behaviors. 2007;32(10):2120–9. [DOI]
26. Karimyar Jahromi M, Mosallanejad L. The impact of reality therapy on metacognition, stress and hope in addicts. Global Journal of Health Science. 2014;6(6):281–7. [Persian] [DOI]
27. Hamonniere T, Varescon I. Metacognitive beliefs in addictive behaviours: a systematic review. Addictive Behaviors. 2018;85:51–63. [DOI]
28. Kuhne F, Meister R, Jansen A, Harter M, Moritz S, Kriston L. Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders in adults: a systematic review protocol (METACOG). BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e015428. [DOI]
29. Spada MM, Caselli G, Nikcevic AV, Wells A. Metacognition in addictive behaviors. Addictive Behaviors. 2015;44:9–15. [DOI]
30. Bahramnejad A, Rabani-Bavojdan M, Rabani-Bavojdan M. The relationship of metacognitive beliefs and tendency to addiction in Sistan and Baluchistan University, Zahedan, Iran. Addict Health. 2012;4(1–2):65–72. [Persian]
31. Amiri Z, Zandkarimi G. Behavioral systems and difficulty with emotional regulation predict adolescents’ addiction potential. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse. 2018;27(5–6):272–6. [Persian] [DOI]
32. Wilson Van Voorhis CR, Morgan BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 2007;3(2):43–50. [DOI]
33. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. 5th edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
34. Garnefski N, Kraaij V, Spinhoven P. Negative life events, cognitive emotion regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual Differences. 2001;30(8):1311–27. [DOI]
35. Hasani J. The psychometric properties of the cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ). Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2010;2(3):73–84. [Persian] [Article]
36. Wells A. Metacognitive therapy for anxiety and depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009.
37. Williams RE, Kraft JC. The mindfulness workbook for addiction: a guide to coping with the grief, stress and anger that trigger addictive behaviors. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications; 2012.
38. Yuki S, Nakatani H, Nakai T, Okanoya K, Tachibana RO. Regulation of action selection based on metacognition in humans via a ventral and dorsal medial prefrontal cortical network. Cortex. 2019;119:336–49. [DOI]
39. Kukla M, Lysaker PH. Metacognition over time is related to neurocognition, social cognition, and intrapsychic foundations in psychosis. Schizophrenia Research: Cognition. 2020;19:100149. [DOI]
40. Rochat L, Manolov R, Billieux J. Efficacy of metacognitive therapy in improving mental health: a meta-analysis of single-case studies. J Clin Psychol. 2018;74(6):896–915. [DOI]
41. Johnson SU, Hoffart A. Metacognitive therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy: a network approach. Front Psychol. 2018;9:2382. [DOI]
42. Creswell JD. Mindfulness interventions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2017;68(1):491–516. [DOI]
43. Hofmann SG, Gomez AF. Mindfulness-based interventions for anxiety and depression. Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2017;40(4):739-49. [DOI]
44. Shapiro SL, Carlson LE, Astin JA, Freedman B. Mechanisms of mindfulness. J Clin Psychol. 2006;62(3):373–86. [DOI]
45. Garland EL, Howard MO. Mindfulness-based treatment of addiction: current state of the field and envisioning the next wave of research. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018;13(1):14. [DOI]
46. Holzel BK, Carmody J, Vangel M, Congleton C, Yerramsetti SM, Gard T, et al. Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. 2011;191(1):36–43. [DOI]
47. Chambers R, Gullone E, Allen NB. Mindful emotion regulation: an integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2009;29(6):560–72. [DOI]
48. Gross JJ. Emotion regulation: affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology. 2002;39(3):281–91. [DOI]
49. Hayes AM, Feldman G. Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context of emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2006;11(3):255–62. [DOI]
50. Garland EL, Gaylord SA, Fredrickson BL. Positive reappraisal mediates the stress-reductive effects of mindfulness: an upward spiral process. Mindfulness. 2011;2(1):59–67. [DOI]
51. Garland EL, Gaylord SA, Boettiger CA, Howard MO. Mindfulness training modifies cognitive, affective, and physiological mechanisms implicated in alcohol dependence: results of a randomized controlled pilot trial. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 2010;42(2):177–92. [DOI]
52. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984.
53. Helgeson VS, Reynolds KA, Tomich PL. A meta-analytic review of benefit finding and growth. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006;74(5):797–816. [DOI]
54. Garland E, Gaylord S, Park J. The role of mindfulness in positive reappraisal. EXPLORE. 2009;5(1):37–44. [DOI]
55. Garland EL. Mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement for addiction, stress, and pain. Washington, DC: NASW Press, National Association of Social Workers; 2013.
56. Garland EL, Hanley A, Farb NA, Froeliger B. State mindfulness during meditation predicts enhanced cognitive reappraisal. Mindfulness. 2015;6(2):234–42. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
