Exploring Patients' Experiences in a Blended Transdiagnostic Group Treatment: Qualitative Study.

IF 3.9 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR Human Factors Pub Date : 2026-07-06 DOI:10.2196/86016
Noelia Jiménez-Orenga, Alba Fadrique-Jiménez, Azucena García-Palacios, Jorge Osma, Amanda Díaz-García, Juana Bretón-López
{"title":"Exploring Patients' Experiences in a Blended Transdiagnostic Group Treatment: Qualitative Study.","authors":"Noelia Jiménez-Orenga, Alba Fadrique-Jiménez, Azucena García-Palacios, Jorge Osma, Amanda Díaz-García, Juana Bretón-López","doi":"10.2196/86016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emotional disorders (EDs) are the most prevalent mental disorders worldwide. Health services face significant difficulties in attending to the high demand and applying evidence-based psychological treatments. Combining the transdiagnostic approach with the group and blended formats could help the accessibility of treatment for ED. It is important to assess the feasibility and acceptability of new interventions from a qualitative perspective.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of patients with ED who have received transdiagnostic cognitive behavioral therapy treatment in a group and blended format.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two subsamples of participants were included: those who completed the intervention (n=18) and those who did not (n=4). The completers' subsample participated in focus groups, which were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analyzed using a consensus qualitative research methodology. The noncompleters subsample completed a brief online questionnaire. Key themes identified by 2 independent researchers were described and used as complementary to focus group findings. Results were reported following the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After analyzing the focus group interviews using the consensus qualitative research method, 8 domains (or topic areas) were identified, namely experience with the online platform, configuration of the blended intervention, therapeutic content, experience with the group sessions via videoconference, role of the therapists, overall assessment of the blended treatment, elements that help maintain adherence, and suggestions for improvement. Overall, participants reported benefits from this type of intervention, expressed satisfaction with the treatment, and highlighted the perceived improvement and usefulness of what they learned. They also noted the good usability of the platform and the possibility of establishing a good therapeutic alliance in this format. Participants also pointed out unfavorable aspects and offered suggestions on possible areas for improvement. For noncompleters, various reasons for dropping out were identified: lack of treatment efficacy, intervention-related stress, difficulty in applying learned strategies, low involvement, lack of motivation, time constraints, or need for different types of help. Strategies to enhance adherence to treatment were also identified, such as changes in the format and configuration of the sessions, allowing more time to discuss individual problems or reducing the number of homework assignments.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These qualitative results support the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility of a blended group transdiagnostic intervention for the treatment of ED. This novel format could be a scalable and well-valued option within mental health services, although it can still be further optimized based on the results of this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":36351,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Human Factors","volume":"13 ","pages":"e86016"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13335943/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/86016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emotional disorders (EDs) are the most prevalent mental disorders worldwide. Health services face significant difficulties in attending to the high demand and applying evidence-based psychological treatments. Combining the transdiagnostic approach with the group and blended formats could help the accessibility of treatment for ED. It is important to assess the feasibility and acceptability of new interventions from a qualitative perspective.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of patients with ED who have received transdiagnostic cognitive behavioral therapy treatment in a group and blended format.

Methods: Two subsamples of participants were included: those who completed the intervention (n=18) and those who did not (n=4). The completers' subsample participated in focus groups, which were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analyzed using a consensus qualitative research methodology. The noncompleters subsample completed a brief online questionnaire. Key themes identified by 2 independent researchers were described and used as complementary to focus group findings. Results were reported following the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines.

Results: After analyzing the focus group interviews using the consensus qualitative research method, 8 domains (or topic areas) were identified, namely experience with the online platform, configuration of the blended intervention, therapeutic content, experience with the group sessions via videoconference, role of the therapists, overall assessment of the blended treatment, elements that help maintain adherence, and suggestions for improvement. Overall, participants reported benefits from this type of intervention, expressed satisfaction with the treatment, and highlighted the perceived improvement and usefulness of what they learned. They also noted the good usability of the platform and the possibility of establishing a good therapeutic alliance in this format. Participants also pointed out unfavorable aspects and offered suggestions on possible areas for improvement. For noncompleters, various reasons for dropping out were identified: lack of treatment efficacy, intervention-related stress, difficulty in applying learned strategies, low involvement, lack of motivation, time constraints, or need for different types of help. Strategies to enhance adherence to treatment were also identified, such as changes in the format and configuration of the sessions, allowing more time to discuss individual problems or reducing the number of homework assignments.

Conclusions: These qualitative results support the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility of a blended group transdiagnostic intervention for the treatment of ED. This novel format could be a scalable and well-valued option within mental health services, although it can still be further optimized based on the results of this study.

探索患者在混合跨诊断组治疗中的经验:定性研究。
背景:情绪障碍(EDs)是世界范围内最常见的精神障碍。保健服务在满足高需求和应用循证心理治疗方面面临重大困难。将跨诊断方法与分组和混合形式相结合,有助于ED治疗的可及性。从定性角度评估新干预措施的可行性和可接受性是重要的。目的:本研究旨在探讨以小组和混合形式接受跨诊断认知行为治疗的ED患者的经验和意见。方法:参与者分为两个子样本:完成干预的参与者(n=18)和未完成干预的参与者(n=4)。完成者的子样本参与焦点小组,逐字记录,随后使用一致的定性研究方法进行分析。未完成子样本完成了一份简短的在线问卷。两位独立研究人员确定的关键主题被描述并用作焦点小组调查结果的补充。结果按照COREQ(报告定性研究的综合标准)指南进行报告。结果:在使用共识定性研究方法分析焦点小组访谈后,确定了8个领域(或主题领域),即在线平台的体验,混合干预的配置,治疗内容,通过视频会议进行小组会议的体验,治疗师的角色,混合治疗的总体评估,有助于保持依从性的因素,以及改进建议。总的来说,参与者报告了这种干预的好处,表达了对治疗的满意,并强调了他们所学到的改善和有用性。他们还注意到该平台的良好可用性以及以这种形式建立良好治疗联盟的可能性。与会者还指出了不利的方面,并就可能改进的方面提出了建议。对于未完成者,确定了各种原因:缺乏治疗效果,干预相关压力,难以应用所学策略,参与度低,缺乏动力,时间限制或需要不同类型的帮助。研究人员还确定了提高治疗依从性的策略,例如改变治疗的形式和配置,允许更多时间讨论个人问题或减少家庭作业的数量。结论:这些定性结果支持了混合小组跨诊断干预治疗ED的可行性、可接受性和临床实用性。这种新形式在精神卫生服务中可能是一种可扩展的、有价值的选择,尽管它仍然可以根据本研究的结果进一步优化。
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
JMIR Human Factors
JMIR Human Factors Medicine-Health Informatics
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
123
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
小红书