Diversity of group cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a scoping review protocol.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Makoto Kawahito, Keitaro Murayama, Hirofumi Tomiyama, Kenta Kato, Akira Matsuo, Nami Nishida, Kou Matsukuma, Tomohiro Nakao
{"title":"Diversity of group cognitive behavioral therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Makoto Kawahito, Keitaro Murayama, Hirofumi Tomiyama, Kenta Kato, Akira Matsuo, Nami Nishida, Kou Matsukuma, Tomohiro Nakao","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This review will identify and compare diverse approaches to group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>CBT is an established treatment for OCD. Although the benefits of group CBT are well known, its practice varies widely. Despite the growing number of studies on group CBT, the extent of heterogeneity in its structure and content has not been examined.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Eligibility criteria will include adult patients (18 years or older) of any gender, with a primary diagnosis of OCD. Articles must report on group CBT implemented as a treatment, specifically focusing on the number, frequency, duration, and format of sessions; number of participants; program content; and therapists' profession. The review will include both experimental and quasi-experimental designs, analytical observational studies, qualitative research, mixed methods studies, and textual evidence from key documents. Conference abstracts, research protocols, and systematic reviews will also be examined. All cultures, geographical contexts, races, and therapeutic settings will be considered. While sub-group analyses (eg, cultural or geographical variations) will not be conducted quantitatively due to the scoping nature of this review, relevant sub-group differences will be explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Published and unpublished articles in English and Japanese from database inception to the present will be searched for in PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MedNar, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will screen papers against predetermined inclusion criteria and extract data for specific variables. Data will be presented as tables and figures, accompanied by a narrative summary.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This review will identify and compare diverse approaches to group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

Introduction: CBT is an established treatment for OCD. Although the benefits of group CBT are well known, its practice varies widely. Despite the growing number of studies on group CBT, the extent of heterogeneity in its structure and content has not been examined.

Inclusion criteria: Eligibility criteria will include adult patients (18 years or older) of any gender, with a primary diagnosis of OCD. Articles must report on group CBT implemented as a treatment, specifically focusing on the number, frequency, duration, and format of sessions; number of participants; program content; and therapists' profession. The review will include both experimental and quasi-experimental designs, analytical observational studies, qualitative research, mixed methods studies, and textual evidence from key documents. Conference abstracts, research protocols, and systematic reviews will also be examined. All cultures, geographical contexts, races, and therapeutic settings will be considered. While sub-group analyses (eg, cultural or geographical variations) will not be conducted quantitatively due to the scoping nature of this review, relevant sub-group differences will be explored.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Published and unpublished articles in English and Japanese from database inception to the present will be searched for in PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, the Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MedNar, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will screen papers against predetermined inclusion criteria and extract data for specific variables. Data will be presented as tables and figures, accompanied by a narrative summary.

强迫症群体认知行为治疗的多样性:范围审查方案。
目的:本综述将识别和比较强迫症(OCD)群体认知行为治疗(CBT)的不同方法。简介:CBT是一种公认的治疗强迫症的方法。虽然群体认知行为治疗的好处是众所周知的,但它的实践却千差万别。尽管对群体CBT的研究越来越多,但其结构和内容的异质性程度尚未得到检验。入选标准:入选标准包括原发性诊断为强迫症的任何性别的成年患者(18岁或以上)。文章必须报道作为一种治疗方法实施的群体CBT,特别关注治疗的次数、频率、持续时间和形式;参加人数;项目内容;还有治疗师的职业。这篇综述将包括实验和准实验设计、分析性观察研究、定性研究、混合方法研究以及来自关键文件的文本证据。会议摘要、研究方案和系统综述也将被审查。所有的文化,地理环境,种族和治疗设置将被考虑。虽然子群体分析(例如,文化或地理差异)由于本次审查的范围性质,将不会进行定量分析,但将探讨相关的子群体差异。方法:本综述将遵循JBI方法进行范围综述。从数据库建立到现在,已发表和未发表的英语和日语文章将在PubMed, Web of Science核心合集,Scopus, Cochrane图书馆(包括Cochrane中央对照试验注册库和Cochrane系统评价数据库),CINAHL, PsycINFO,开放获取论文和学位论文,WHO国际临床试验注册平台,MedNar和谷歌Scholar中检索。两名审稿人将根据预定的纳入标准筛选论文,并提取特定变量的数据。数据将以表格和数字的形式提出,并附有叙述性摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信