User:Cmockler/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!

Link to Project Resource Page
Project Homepage and Resources

Assignment # 3
Wikipedia Article Title: Specific Phobia

Proposed Changes (2 marks):

Sentences that I am removing:


 * 1) “The following are two therapies normally used in treating specific phobia:”
 * 2) “Cognitive drill theory (CDT) is a type of therapy that focuses on exposure to certain words (usually relating explicitly to ones fear) repeatedly in order to help a patient try to better manage their fear. It is often used to treat people with OCD, as well as those with specific phobias.”

Sentence that I am editing:


 * 1) Exposure therapy a particularly effective form of CBT for specific phobias.

Sentences that I am inserting after sentence about cognitive behavioral therapy:

“Exposure therapy is a particularly effective form of CBT for many specific phobias, however, treatment acceptance and high drop-out rates have been noted as concerns. Other interventions have been successful for particular types of specific phobia, such as virtual reality exposure therapy (VRET) for spider, dental, and height phobias, applied muscle tension (AMT) for needle phobia, and psychoeducation with relaxation exercises for fear of childbirth (Thng et al., 2020). ”

Rationale for proposed change (3 marks):

I am removing the sentence “the following are two therapies normally used in treating specific phobia” because I chose to focus on CBT and remove the section on cognitive drill theory (CDT). I deleted the section on CDT because the study cited is a single case study that shows only modest improvements. Wikipedia requires stronger, secondary sources so I have replaced this section with more specific examples of therapies that have been successful treating particular types of specific phobia from a recent review article. I expanded the sentence on exposure therapy as the source cited by the original contributor clearly stated that CBT/exposure therapy has been shown to be associated with high dropout rates and low treatment acceptance, which I believe is important for readers to be aware of.

Area of controversy (if applicable) (1 mark):

For my section, there were some varied opinions in my group about whether the non-pharmacological treatments mentioned should focus on those that have been found to be successful interventions for specific phobias generally or if I should focus on identifying the best interventions for particular classes of specific phobia. I decided to include both, focussing on general treatments in my first sentence and more specific treatments in my second sentence as I think it is important for readers to understand that all types of specific phobias will not respond to treatment in the exact same way.

Critique of source (2 marks):

Source #1 - Treatment of specific phobia in adults (Choy et al., 2007):

The potential sources of bias in this article are publication and English language bias. The authors did not look at grey literature and only selected articles in English. Another potential issue is that the article is from 2007, which may have outdated information, however, I supplemented the information from this source with that from a more recent review. The strengths of this source include that the search was very thorough, regardless of the grey literature missing, involving various databases and screening article references in addition to their original search. Other strengths include that the authors had an explicit, reproducible search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria. I do not believe that the potential bias of this course would significantly impact the information that I extracted, as I simply stated from this article that “treatment acceptance and high drop-out rates have been noted as concerns”, which was found in a number of the articles that they reviewed.

Source #2 – Recent developments in the intervention of specific phobia about adults: a rapid review (Thng et al., 2020):

The potential sources of bias in this article are the same as the first article, publication and English language bias. The authors only selected articles in English and did not include case studies, other review articles, or grey literature. In addition to this, only articles from the last five years were included. The strengths include that the search and inclusion/exclusion criteria were detailed and reproducible and that it is a recent review article, capturing novel and relevant findings to today’s population. With the article only including studies from the last five years, this may reduce the strength of the claims that I extracted.

What to post on the Wikipedia article talk page?

 * This will also be covered on Nov 23rd in class. Your group should use the below template to share an outline of your proposed improvements (including your new wording and citations). Article talk pages are not places to share your assignment answers. The Wikipedia community will be more interested in viewing your exact article improvement suggestions including where you plan to improve the article (which section), what wording you suggest, and the exact citation (Note: all citations must meet WP:MEDRS)
 * You will not be able to paste citations directly from your sandbox to talk pages (unless you are interested in editing/learning Wiki-code in the "source editing" mode). We suggest re-adding your citations on the talk page manually (using the cite button and populating the citation by pasting in the DOI, website, or PMID). You will have to repeat this process yet again when you edit the actual article live.
 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2020/Talk Page Template