Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group therapy, psychodrama, and their integration for treatment of social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Hanieh Abeditehrani, Corine Dijk, Mohsen Dehghani Neyshabouri, A. Arntz
{"title":"Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral group therapy, psychodrama, and their integration for treatment of social anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Hanieh Abeditehrani, Corine Dijk, Mohsen Dehghani Neyshabouri, A. Arntz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3985128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\nAlthough cognitive behavioral group therapy (CBGT) is an effective treatment for social anxiety disorder, many socially anxious patients are still symptomatic after treatment. A possible improvement for CBGT could come from the more experiential group psychotherapy, psychodrama (PD). The integration of CBGT and PD (labeled CBPT) might offer an even more effective treatment than CBGT or PD alone. With the present study, we investigated first whether three kinds of group therapy (CBGT, PD, and CBPT) are superior to a waitlist (WL). Second, we investigated whether CBPT is more effective than CBGT or PD alone.\n\n\nMETHODS\nOne hundred and forty-four social anxiety patients were randomly assigned to three active conditions or a WL. After wait, WL-participants were randomized over the active treatment conditions.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe results of a multilevel analysis showed that all treatments were superior to WL in reducing social anxiety complaints. Only CBGT and CBPT differed significantly from WL in reducing fear of negative evaluations. There were no significant differences between active conditions in any of the variables after treatment and after six-month follow up, neither were there significant differences in treatment dropout.\n\n\nLIMITATIONS\nFirst there is the lack of a long-term follow-up. Second, because of loss of participants, we did not reach the planned numbers in the active treatment groups in comparison to WL. Moreover, this study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence trial.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAlthough the integrative CBPT showed good results, it was not more effective than the other treatments.","PeriodicalId":48198,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","volume":"1 1","pages":"101908"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3985128","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Although cognitive behavioral group therapy (CBGT) is an effective treatment for social anxiety disorder, many socially anxious patients are still symptomatic after treatment. A possible improvement for CBGT could come from the more experiential group psychotherapy, psychodrama (PD). The integration of CBGT and PD (labeled CBPT) might offer an even more effective treatment than CBGT or PD alone. With the present study, we investigated first whether three kinds of group therapy (CBGT, PD, and CBPT) are superior to a waitlist (WL). Second, we investigated whether CBPT is more effective than CBGT or PD alone. METHODS One hundred and forty-four social anxiety patients were randomly assigned to three active conditions or a WL. After wait, WL-participants were randomized over the active treatment conditions. RESULTS The results of a multilevel analysis showed that all treatments were superior to WL in reducing social anxiety complaints. Only CBGT and CBPT differed significantly from WL in reducing fear of negative evaluations. There were no significant differences between active conditions in any of the variables after treatment and after six-month follow up, neither were there significant differences in treatment dropout. LIMITATIONS First there is the lack of a long-term follow-up. Second, because of loss of participants, we did not reach the planned numbers in the active treatment groups in comparison to WL. Moreover, this study was not designed as a non-inferiority or equivalence trial. CONCLUSIONS Although the integrative CBPT showed good results, it was not more effective than the other treatments.
认知行为团体疗法、心理剧及其整合治疗社交焦虑症的有效性:一项随机对照试验。
背景与目的认知行为团体治疗(CBGT)是治疗社交焦虑障碍的有效方法,但许多社交焦虑患者治疗后仍有症状。对CBGT的一种可能的改善可能来自更有经验的群体心理治疗,心理剧(PD)。CBGT和PD的结合(标记为CBPT)可能比单独CBGT或PD提供更有效的治疗。在本研究中,我们首先调查了三种团体治疗(CBGT, PD和CBPT)是否优于等候名单(WL)。其次,我们调查了CBPT是否比CBGT或单独PD更有效。方法144例社交焦虑患者随机分为三种活动状态或一种活动状态。等待后,wl参与者在积极治疗条件下随机分组。结果多水平分析结果显示,所有治疗方法在减少社交焦虑主诉方面均优于WL。只有CBGT和CBPT在减少负面评价恐惧方面与WL有显著差异。治疗后和6个月随访后,活跃状态在任何变量上没有显著差异,治疗退出也没有显著差异。局限性:首先,缺乏长期的随访。其次,由于参与者的流失,与WL相比,我们没有达到积极治疗组的计划人数。此外,本研究并非设计为非劣效性或等效性试验。结论综合cbt治疗效果良好,但并不比其他治疗更有效。
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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The publication of the book Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition (1958) by the co-founding editor of this Journal, Joseph Wolpe, marked a major change in the understanding and treatment of mental disorders. The book used principles from empirical behavioral science to explain psychopathological phenomena and the resulting explanations were critically tested and used to derive effective treatments. The second half of the 20th century saw this rigorous scientific approach come to fruition. Experimental approaches to psychopathology, in particular those used to test conditioning theories and cognitive theories, have steadily expanded, and experimental analysis of processes characterising and maintaining mental disorders have become an established research area.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信