Espinosa Gil RM¹*, Pérez Cascales, B², Roca Serna María Dolores², Navarro García³, A Peñalver Alejandre S³ and Monteagudo- Santamaría María⁴

¹Facultativa Especialista en Psicología Clínica. Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca Servicio Murciano de Salud
²Residente de Psicología Clínica Comunidad Valenciana
³Practicum UCAM 4º año de Psicología
⁴Jefa de Servicio de Medicina Física y Rehabilitación. Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca Servicio Murciano de Salud

*Corresponding Author: Espinosa Gil RM, Facultativa Especialista en Psicología Clínica. Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca Servicio Murciano de Salud.

Received: March 21, 2025; Published: March 31, 2025

Abstract

 Introduction: Multifamily groups have demostrated their effectiveness in different clinical and healthcare setting, primarily in patients with mental health problems. However, their benefits in patients with acquired brain damage have been little investigated. Interfamily therapy is base don dialogic practices and attachment. However, due to the intrinsic characteristics of our simple, we sought to delve deeper into the concept of emphaty( focusing primarily on perspective- taking and empathic concern, as mesoured by an interpesonal Reactivity Index (IRI) assesemnt intrument). Using multifamily therapy, we aimed to investigat, in a simple of 34 patients, whether imporvementes in empathy accurred after attending 10 sessiones. We also sought to explore the level of satisfaction with multifamily therapy.

 Result: The level of satisfaction with subjective improvements was hight at 92 %. No significant differences were found in the four índices that mediate the IRI( fantasy, perspective taking, empathic concern, and personal distresss). 44.11% improved in “ capacity for compassion for others” and concern. Another 44.11% imporved in “ persepctive- taking”, regardless of the location of the injury. Difficult undestanding certain ítems in our IRI simple. We found higher scores in empathy, both in perspective taking and empathic concen, in people with right-sided lesions before and after group psychotherapy. Therefore, our data do not corroborate findings in other studies on empathy.

 Conclusions: Multifamily groups are satisfactory and useful, according to or simple. The IRI is a complx instrument fro patienes woth acquired brain injury ( patients with languages-related injuries were excluded. We found no significant differences in improved empathy, althought we did observe a trend toward improvement in empathic concern and undestanding of others, and in perspective- taking. Therefore, futher research is need on these parameters to obtain a more robust simple

 Keywords: Empathy; Acquired Brain Injury; Multifamily Groups; Psychotherapy

References

1. Espinosa-Gil Rosa María and Monteagudo Santamaría María. “Inter-Family/Intercultural Group/and Acquired Brain Injury”. ECPsychology and Psychiatry 10 (2020): 09-18.
2. Ratey JJ. “A User’s Guide To The Brain Grupo Editorial Random House Mondadori, S. L., Travessera de Gràcia (2002): 47-49.
3. Sempere J and Fuenzaliza C. “Multifamily therapies”. Editorial Psimática (2017).
4. Norcross JC. “Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients”. Oxford University Press (2002).
5. Siegel DJ. “Reflection on mind, brain and relationships in group psychotherapy”. In the Interpersonal Neurobiology of Group Psychotherapy and Group Process (2013).
6. Sapolsky RM. “The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health”. Science 5722 (2005): 648-652.
7. Lewis M., et al. “Attachment Over Time”. Child Development 3 (2000): 707-720.
8. Premack D. “The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects”. Cognition 36 (1990): 1-16.
9. Sapolsky RM. “The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health”. Science 5722 (2005): 648-652.
10. Adolphs R. “Cognitive neuroscience of human social behaviour”. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4 (2003): 165-178.
11. Goldberg E. “El cerebro ejecutivo”. Barcelona: Crítica (2002).
12. Frith CD and Frith U. “How we predict what other people are going to do”. Brain Research 1079 (2006): 36-46.
13. Lawson J., et al. “Empathising and systemising in adults with and without Asperger syndrome”. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34 (2004): 301-310.
14. Ochsner KN. “The social-emotional processing stream: five core constructs and their translational potential for schizophrenia and beyond”. Biological Psychiatry 64 (2008): 48-61.
15. Sanchez- Cubillo I., et al. “Neuropsicología de la cognición social y autoconciencia” (2012).
16. De Sousa A., et al. “Understanding deficits in empathy after brain injury: the role of affective responsity”. Cortex 47 (2011): 526-535.
17. Shamay-Tsoory SG., et al. “Impairment in cognitive and affective empathy in patients with brain lesions: anatomical and cognitive correlates”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 26 (2004): 1113-1127.
18. Shamay-Tsoory SG., et al. “Characterization of empathy deficits following prefrontal brain damage: the role of the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (2003): 324-337.
19. Saxe R., et al. “The neuroscience of theory of mind”. Society for Neuroscience 3-4 (2006): 1-9.
20. Adolphs R. “Social cognition and the human brain”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (1999): 469-479.
21. Tulving E., et al. “Hemispheric encoding/retrieval asymmetry in episodic memory: positron emission tomograph findings”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91 (1994): 2016-2020.
22. Satpute AB and Lieberman MD. “Integrating automatic and controlled processes into neurocognitive models of social cognition”. Brain Research 1079 (2006): 86-97.
23. Lieberman MD. “Principles, processes, and puzzles of social cognition: an introduction for the special issue on social cognitive neuroscience”. Neuroimage 28 (2005): 745-756.
24. Adolphs R., et al. “Impaired recognition of social emotions following amygdala damage”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 14 (2007): 1264-1274.
25. C lark DL., et al. “El cerebro y la conducta: neuroanatomía para psicólogos”. Bogota: El Manual Moderno (2007).
26. Mercadillo RE., et al. “Neurobiología de las emociones morales”. Salud Mental 30 (2011): 1-11.
27. Sanchez- Cubillo I., et al. “Neuropsicología de la cognición social y aut oconcinencia (2012).
28. Zappalà G., et al. “Traumatic brain injury and the frontal lobes: What can we gain with diffusion tensor imaging?” Cortex 48 (2012): 156-165.
29. Davis MH. “A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy”. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10 (1980): 1-17.
30. Pérez-Albeniz A., et al. “Adaptación de Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español”. Psicothema 15 (2003): 267-272.
31. Sempere J and Fuenzaliza C. “Multifamily therapies”. Editorial Psimática (2017).
32. Jiménez Cortés., et al. “Empathy disorders in traumatic brain damage”. Revue Neurologique  1 (2012): 1-10.
33. Pérez-Albeniz A., et al. “Adaptación de Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español”. Psicothema 15 (2003): 267-272.

Citation

Citation: Espinosa Gil RM., et al. “Multifamily Groups, Empathy and Acquired Brain Damage". Acta Scientific Neurology 8.4 (2025): 41-46.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Espinosa Gil RM., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.