CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07704138PBACEUpdated Jul 15, 2026

Testing the Effectiveness of Process Based Therapy in Routine Patient Care and Assessing Its Influence on Therapist Decision Making

An interventional study of Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT) and Routine practice in Depressive and Anxiety Disorders, sponsored by Goethe University. Recruiting at 1 site in Germany. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-15.

Sponsored by Goethe University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
60
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 65 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Background: Process Based Therapy (PBT) is a novel approach for a more personalized psychotherapy by integrating patient's ecological momentary assessment (EMA) data into treatment planning and focusing on empirically measured maladaptive processes. Previous pilot studies have examined the efficacy and feasibility of PBT in different settings. However, the effectiveness of this approach as well as the influence of providing EMA data on therapist's decision-making as well as treatment planning is yet unexplored.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of PBT in a naturalistic setting as well examine the influence of the provision of EMA data on therapists' decision-making.

Methods: Thiry therapists as well as 60 patients will be recruited. Therapists will each treat two patients which are randomly allocated to either an intervention group receiving PBT or an active control group receiving routine psychotherapy. Treatment outcomes will be measured pre and post treatment as well as a 6-month follow-up. Therapists' decision making will be measured before training in PBT as well as during the treatment process using think aloud protocols (TAP) as well as quantitative measurements for decision making styles and self efficacy in decision making.

Discussion: This study could add insights into the ongoing research about the efficacy and effectiveness of PBT as well as provide insights into therapists' treatment decisions. While PBT holds theoretical promise for a more personalized and effective treatment, empirical data is still needed to assess its theoretical merit, which this study could provide. Expanding on the thus far scarce literature on decision-making in the therapeutic process, valuable information about processes guiding therapists' treatment decisions could be gained.

02

Conditions studied

  • Depressive and Anxiety Disorders

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Process Based Therapy
  • effectiveness
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 65 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • A primary ICD-11 diagnosis of a depressive or anxiety disorder
  • Age 18-65 years
  • Sufficient knowledge of the German language
  • Participating patients are not required to discontinue medication, but to keep medication constant over the treatment period

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Increased suicidality
  • Substance abuse or dependency
  • diagnosis of a cluster A or B (DSM-5) personality disorder
  • pervasive developmental disorder, psychotic disorder, eating disorder, bipolar disorder, or severe physical illness.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
60 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT)

    In PBT, treatment planning is based on a dynamic network analysis of EMA data collected during the baseline phase. Therapists identify the central node, significant edges, self-loops, and feedback loops between the nodes. Using this information, interventions are selected based on empirical evidence for mechanisms of change that correspond to the network characteristics. These interventions are framed within an evolutionary framework as the variation, selection, and retention of an adaptive mode of the central node in relation to the specific context of the problem. The change in this key variable is monitored through daily judgments based on EMA. Treatment also focuses on additional targets to establish adaptive modes of the dimensions as defined in the positive network model. Concomitant medication is allowed and will be controlled by the study design.

    Other: Process Based Psychotherapy (PBT) · Drug: Psychiatric medication kept constant over study duration

  • Active comparator
    Routine practice (r-PT)

    In r-PT, as opposed to PBT, a naturalistic setting is retained for treatment decisions. Treatment planning follows traditional theories about the factors maintaining the disorder and interventions changing them, e.g. avoidance and exposure in anxiety disorders or reduced reinforcement of activities and behavioral activation in depression. Interventions are based on common treatment manuals related to diagnoses, e.g. CBT for depression. Individual data from the behavioral analysis are used to tailor the techniques to the individual problems of the patients. Treatment process is largely structured by personal preferences of the therapist due to experience, knowledge or recommendations of the National guidelines for the mental health problem.Concomitant medication is allowed and will be controlled by the study design.

    Other: Routine practice · Drug: Psychiatric medication kept constant over study duration

Interventions

  • OtherProcess Based Psychotherapy (PBT)

    Intervention planning based on the use of EMA data, feedback of dynamic network analysis and matching of interventions to central nodes of the network.

    Also known as: Process-based Therapy with Ecological Momentary Assessment

  • OtherRoutine practice

    Intervention planning as usual.

    Also known as: Routine psychotherapy

  • DrugPsychiatric medication kept constant over study duration

    Psychiatric medication is kept constant during the trial. Participants are not required to take medication. If participants enlisting in the trial are on medication however, they will be asked to keep medication constant over the study duration

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Depressive and anxiety symptom severity

    To assess Psychopathological Stress , the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21) is used. The DASS-21 is a validated and reliable 21 item self-report instrument for the measurement of depressive and anxiety symptoms. Additionally, stress as a negative affective state is measured on an additional subscale. The scale ranges from 1-4 with higher mean values reflecting higher symptom severity in the respective subscale as well as an overall score of Psychopathological Stress.

    Time frame: Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.

  2. Positive Mental Health and Quality of Life

    Positive mental health and quality of Life will be measured using the positive mental health scale (PMH). The PMH is a validated nine-item self-report scale for the measurement of the presence of positive mental health. Scores range form 1-4 with higher mean scores reflecting a more positive mental health.

    Time frame: Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.

  3. Therapist Decision Making

    Therapist Decision Making regarding treatment planning will be measured using think-aloud protocols (TAP). The think-aloud method is usually used to measure decision making in cognitive tasks such as problem solving, where participants are instructed to "think-aloud" meaning to verbalize their thoughts during a cognitive task. In this study, therapists will be instructed to verbalize their treatment planning at nine measurement points.

    Time frame: Assessed pre-training in PBT (Day 0), at Day 1 of treatment, after diagnosis (Day 2), after a hypothetical model is developed (Day 3), after EMA-Assessment is complete (Week-6) and every four weeks during the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).

Secondary outcomes

  1. Client satisfaction

    Patient satisfaction at the end of treatment, measured with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ). The CSQ uses 8 items with a range of 1-4 with higher mean values reflecting higher satisfaction with the recieved treatment.

    Time frame: Assessed at post-treatment (week 28).

  2. Patient and Therapist Attitude Towards EMA-Assessment

    the therapist attitudes toward the utility of the EMA and networks scale (TAUEN) and the patient attitudes toward the utility of the EMA and networks scale (PAUEN) are modified versions of the Therapist and Client Attitudes Measures. minimum value= 8, maximum value= 40, higher scores mean a higher attitude toward EMA and networks regarding their utility.

    Time frame: Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and post-treatment (week 28) (PAUEN). Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and every four weeks in Treatment Phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22) (TAUEN)

  3. Therapist Treatment Evaluation

    The Treatment Evaluation Inventory will be used to assess therapists' perceptions of treatment. It consists of 14 statements that are evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale, with response options spanning from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). A higher mean score reflects a higher attitude towards the given treatment (e.g. PBT or routine care)

    Time frame: Assessed at intermediate (week 6) and every four weeks in the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).

  4. Self-Efficacy

    Perceived general self-efficacy, meaning an optimistic self-belief that one can perform difficult or novel tasks or cope with adversity is measured by the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The GSE is a 10-item self-report questionnaire with a validated one factor structure. The GSE ranges from 1-4 with a higher mean score reflecting higher self-efficacy.

    Time frame: Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.

  5. Decisional Self-Efficacy

    Decision making self-efficacy is measured using the Decision Self-Efficacy Scale. The DSE is an 11-item self-report instrument measuring self-efficacy in the domain of treatment decisions. The DSE ranges from 0-4 with higher mean scores reflecting a higher confidence and self-efficacy in treatment decisions.

    Time frame: Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate), assessed at post-treatment (week 28) and assessed at a six-month follow-up.

  6. Therapeutic Alliance

    Therapeutic Alliance is measured at patient level using the Working Alliance Inventory Short Revised Patient Version (WAI-SR-P). The WAI-SR-P measures therapeutic alliance from the patient's perspective using 12 items as a self report ranging from 1-5 with higher mean scores reflecting a stronger and more positive working alliance as perceived by the patient.

    Time frame: Assessed after randomization (Day 1), after completion of the EMA baseline phase (6-Week intermediate) and assessed at post-treatment (week 28).

  7. Therapist Decision Making Style

    Therapists' Decision Making Styles will be measured using the therapist decision making questionnaire (TDMQ). The TDMQ is a self-report scale measuring therapists' decision-making style using 23 items on a scale from 1 to 5. Higher mean scores on a specific subscale reflect a decision style that puts a higher emphasis on the sources of information belonging to that specific decision making style.

    Time frame: Assessed pre-training in PBT (Day 0), at Day 1 of treatment, after diagnosis (Day 2), after a hypothetical model is developed (Day 3), after EMA-Assessment is complete (Week-6) and every four weeks during the treatment phase (Weeks 10, 14, 18 and 22).

06

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • JWGUniversity
    Frankfurt am Main, Hesse 60486, Germany
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Wilmers, F., & Munder, T. (2016). Der WAI-sr. In K. Geue, B. Strauß, & E. Brähler (Hrsg.), Diagnostische Verfahren in der Psychotherapie (3. Aufl.). Hogrefe.
  • Someren, M. W. van, Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. Academic Press.
  • Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2012). General Self-Efficacy Scale [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t00393-000
  • Lukat, J., Margraf, J., Lutz, R., Van Der Veld, W. M., & Becker, E. S. (2019). Positive Mental Health Scale [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t74178-000
  • Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (2011). Depression Anxiety Stress Scales [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000
  • Frumkin MR, Piccirillo ML, Beck ED, Grossman JT, Rodebaugh TL. Feasibility and utility of idiographic models in the clinic: A pilot study. Psychother Res. 2021 Apr;31(4):520-534. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2020.1805133. Epub 2020 Aug 24. PubMed 32838671 ↗
  • Fiehn, H. (n.d.). The Therapist Decision Making Style Questionnaire. [Manuscript in preparation].
  • Burgio LD, Sinnott J. Behavioral treatments and pharmacotherapy: acceptability ratings by elderly individuals in residential settings. Gerontologist. 1990 Dec;30(6):811-6. doi: 10.1093/geront/30.6.811. PubMed 2286341 ↗
  • Bunn H, O'Connor A. Validation of client decision-making instruments in the context of psychiatry. Can J Nurs Res. 1996 Fall;28(3):13-27. PubMed 8997937 ↗
  • Attkisson CC, Zwick R. The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Eval Program Plann. 1982;5(3):233-7. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(82)90074-x. PubMed 10259963 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · May 15, 2026

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — Individual participant data that underlie the results reported in the main publication of outcomes, after deidentification (text, tables, figures, and appendices) will be shared. Further Study Protocol, Analysis Plan, Informed Consent Form and Analytic Code will be shared to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Analytic code

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07704138
Lead sponsor
Goethe University
Responsible party
Prof. Dr. Ulrich Stangier (Research Professor at the Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy and Center for Psychotherapy, Goethe University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 15, 2026
Start date
Jun 27, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Jan 1, 2029 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 1, 2029 (estimated)
Last update
Jul 15, 2026

Study contacts

Ulrich Stangier, PhD
Contact
stangier@psych.uni-frankfurt.de
049 1707339293
Ulrich Stangier, PhD
principal investigator · Goethe Universität Frankfurt

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion