ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Reconditioning Emotional Responses With the Break Method: Pilot Quantitative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Break Method is a structured, behavior-based emotional reconditioning program designed to help individuals gain insight into patterns of emotional dysregulation and reprogram behavioral responses rooted in past experiences. Although it has been widely adopted in private and small-group settings, empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness remains limited. With increasing interest in accessible, scalable, and personalized mental health interventions, evaluating the outcomes of such programs is essential for informing future implementation and research.
objectiveThis pilot study aimed to evaluate changes in self-reported mental health status before and after participation in the Break Method program. Specifically, we sought to examine (1) overall trends in mental health improvement, (2) associations between specific reasons for joining the program and changes in mental health outcomes, and (3) latent clusters of participant motivations based on symptom profiles.
methodsData were collected from 175 unique participants, yielding 195 total survey responses (as 15 participants completed the program more than once). Participants rated their mental health status on a 5-point Likert scale both before and after the program (this was not a validated clinical measure, limiting the interpretability and comparability of results). Descriptive statistics and paired 2-tailed t tests were used to assess pre- and postprogram differences in Likert scores. McNemar tests were conducted to compare categorical mental health status (Likert score ≥4 vs <4) before and after participation. Analyses of covariance examined score changes across groups stratified by reported reasons for joining. Multiple correspondence analysis was used to explore latent symptom clusters.
resultsBefore program participation, 186 of 195 (95.4%) responses reported Likert scores below 4. Following the program, 157 (80.5%) responses reported scores of 4 or higher. A significant improvement in mental health status was observed (preprogram mean score 2.07 SD 0.82, postprogram mean score 3.92 SD 0.73; P<.001). Significant, positive changes were associated with reasons including anxiety (β=0.332, 95% CI 0.073-0.591), obsessive-compulsive disorder (β=0.455, 95% CI 0.061-0.850), and a history of self-harm or suicidal ideation (β=0.511, 95% CI 0.091-0.931). The multiple correspondence analysis identified three clusters of participants based on symptom profiles: (1) low self-image (eg, depression, self-sabotage, and relationship issues); (2) life-development goals (eg, self-discovery and future planning); and (3) obsessive-compulsive disorder-related symptoms. The first cluster was significantly associated with improved mental health outcomes (β=0.348, 95% CI 0.060-0.636).
conclusionsThe Break Method appears to be a promising intervention for improving mental health, particularly among individuals reporting anxiety, low confidence, or a history of self-sabotage. However, due to the single-group, preprogram-postprogram design without a control group, causality cannot be inferred, and these findings should be interpreted as preliminary associations rather than confirmed efficacy. Future studies should incorporate standardized clinical tools, control groups, and longitudinal designs to validate these results and explore long-term outcomes across diverse populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.