Cited by 108Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A comparison of the efficacy and acceptability of group versus individual cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment of panic disorder and agoraphobia in primary care

Sharp, D. M., Power, K. G., Swanson, V.·2004·Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy

Abstract

Panic disorder and agoraphobia is a prevalent clinical condition which places heavy demands on treatment resources in primary care. The efficient delivery of evidence‐based psychological treatment for this disorder is therefore important. Previous research has investigated both individual and group treatment formats for cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder and agoraphobia. These two modalities of treatment delivery are, however, rarely compared within the same study format. Also little is known of patients' preferences regarding treatment delivery formats. The present study investigated the relative efficacy of a group treatment CBT and an individual treatment CBT in comparison with a waiting list control group in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in primary care. Ninety‐seven patients suffering from DSM‐IV panic disorder with or without agoraphobia were randomly allocated to receive either group CBT, individual CBT, or waiting list control. All patients were seen by the same therapist and all received an identical treatment manual. Treatment response was measured by blind assessor, therapist and patient‐rated measures of anxiety, depression, and agoraphobic avoidance, and was analysed in terms of both traditional statistical significance and clinical significance of outcome. At treatment end‐point, in terms of traditional statistical significance, both the group and individual CBT were significantly superior to waiting list control b…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cpp.393

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Group CBT can be as effective as individual CBT for anxiety-related disorders.

    “some studies indicate that group CBT can be as effective as individual CBT for anxietyrelated disorders (Oie & Boschen, 2009;Pozza & Dèttore, 2017;Sharp, Power, & Swanson, 2004;van Ingen & Novicki, 2009).”

    From Efficacy of an acceptance-based group behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. (2020) · cites this paper as Sharp, Power, & Swanson, 2004

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 28 · Cited by 108

Authors
Sharp, D. M., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V.
Affiliations
University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Sharp, D. M.
Venue
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
73-82
ISSN
  • 1063-3995 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0879
OpenAlex
W2001526675
Cited by
108
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
panic disorder, agoraphobia, group cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment delivery format, primary care, treatment efficacy, treatment acceptability, patient preferences, anxiety, depression, agoraphobic avoidance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review