A Nonrandomized Effectiveness Comparison of Broad-Spectrum Group CBT to Individual CBT for Depressed Outpatients in a Community Mental Health Setting
Abstract
Controlled trials have established the efficacy of cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) for depression. However, the relative effectiveness of individual versus group treatment formats in real-world settings is less well established. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of group CBT (n=157) compared to individual CBT (n=77) for depressed outpatients in a naturalistic setting. Symptom improvements for depression, anxiety, and quality of life were compared between treatment formats in intent-to-treat and completer analyses. Effect sizes and rates of recovery were examined. Results showed that both individual and group CBT were effective, even in the presence of high levels of comorbidity. Whereas individual CBT was associated with larger effect sizes and significantly higher rates of recovery, group CBT compared favorably to outcomes established by past research. A broad-spectrum group CBT program may be a viable treatment option when depression symptoms are less severe and when this format of treatment delivery is desirable.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Six of the 11 studies assessing the effects of therapeutic programs on psychiatric symptoms found significant improvements.
“Six of the 11 studies that assessed the effects of therapeutic programs on psychiatric symptoms (e.g.hallucinations, delusions and depressive symptoms) found significant improvements (Mueser et al. 2006;Craigie and Nathan 2009;Nagel et al. 2009;Forbes et al. 2012;Mills et al. 2012;Shawyer et al. 2017).”
From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Craigie and Nathan 2009
Four of seven therapeutic studies found significant improvements in participants' psychosocial outcomes.
“Finally, four of seven studies found significant improvements in participants' psychosocial outcomes (Mueser et al. 2006;Craigie and Nathan 2009;Nagel et al. 2009;Contreras et al. 2018).”
From Effect of community mental health care programs in Australia: A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Craigie and Nathan 2009
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 38
- Authors
- Craigie, M. A., & Nathan, P.
- Affiliations
- Centre for Clinical Interventions (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Craigie, Mark A.
- Venue
- Behavior Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 302-314
- ISSN
- 0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082192362
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
- Keywords
- group cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, outpatients, community mental health, comorbidities, anxiety, quality of life, recovery rate
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Community Mental Health Centers, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Outpatients, Patient Compliance, Psychotherapy, Group, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction
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
