Cited by 118Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A multifaith spiritually based intervention for generalized anxiety disorder: a pilot randomized trial

Open access
Koszycki, Diana, Raab, Kelley, Aldosary, Fahad, Bradwejn, Jacques·2010·Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

This pilot trial evaluated the efficacy of a multifaith spiritually based intervention (SBI) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Patients meeting DSM-IV criteria for GAD of at least moderate severity were randomized to either 12 sessions of the SBI (n=11) delivered by a spiritual care counselor or 12 sessions of psychologist-administered cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; n=11). Outcome measures were completed at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. Primary efficacy measures included the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Data analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat sample using the Last Observation Carried Forward method. Eighteen patients (82%) completed the study. The SBI produced robust and clinically significant reductions from baseline in psychic and somatic symptoms of GAD and was comparable in efficacy to CBT. A reduction in depressive symptoms and improvement in social adjustment was also observed. Treatment response occurred in 63.6% of SBI-treated and 72.3% of CBT-treated patients. Gains were maintained at 3-month and 6-month follow-ups. These preliminary findings are encouraging and suggest that a multifaith SBI may be an effective treatment option for GAD. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the efficacy of this intervention.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jclp.20663

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Other active treatments, like biofeedback, applied relaxation and different psychological interventions, proved to be less effective than CBT.

    “Other active treatments, like biofeedback (Biswas and Chattopadhyay, 2001), applied relaxation (Arntz, 2003) and different psychological interventions (Koszycki et al., 2010) proved to be less effective than CBT.”

    From Standard CBT versus integrative and multimodal CBT assisted by virtual-reality for generalized anxiety disorder (2022) · cites this paper as Koszycki et al., 2010

    The Koszycki citation is attached to the claim that a different psychological intervention proved less effective than CBT. In the Follow-Up Phase, the paper reports no significant difference in treatment outcome between its spiritual intervention and CBT; the Discussion says the intervention compared well with CBT. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Brown, G.K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory manual (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX, Psychological Corporation.
  2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. PhillipsIII, R.E., Lakin, R., & Pargament, K.I. (2002). The development of a psychospiritual intervention for people with serious mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal, 38, 487-495.
  4. Zinbarg, R.E., Craske, M.G., & Barlow, D.H. (2006). Mastery of your anxiety and worry (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koszycki, D., Raab, K., Aldosary, F., & Bradwejn, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Koszycki, Diana
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02-08
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
430-441
ISSN
  • 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4679
OpenAlex
W1995694274
Cited by
116
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, spiritual care, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment efficacy, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, social adaptation, treatment response, maintenance of treatment gains
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Religion and Psychology, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Intention to Treat Analysis

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