Efficacy of group psychotherapy for anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of group psychotherapy in the treatment of anxiety disorders. Method: A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and manual searches was conducted to locate randomized controlled trials. We found 57 eligible studies ( k = 76 comparisons) including 3656 participants receiving group psychotherapy or an alternative treatment for generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Results: Effect size estimates show that group psychotherapy reduces specific symptoms of anxiety disorders more effectively than no-treatment control groups ( g = 0.92, [0.81; 1.03], k = 43) and treatments providing common unspecific treatment factors ( g = 0.29 [0.10; 0.48], k = 12). No significant differences were found compared to individual psychotherapy ( g = 0.24 [-0.09; 0.57], k = 7) or pharmacotherapy ( g = -0.05 [-0.33; 0.23], k = 6). The effects were unrelated to factors of the group treatment. Within head-to-head studies, a significant moderating effect emerged for researcher allegiance. Conclusions: Our results support the efficacy of group psychotherapy for anxiety disorders. They indicate that mixed-diagnoses groups are equally effective as diagnosis-specific groups, although further evidence is required. Future primary studies should address differential effectiveness, include a wider range of therapeutic approaches as well as active comparison groups.
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?
Both individual and group therapies are effective for anxiety disorders.
“In general, it can be deduced from the results of previous meta-analyses that both individual and group therapies are effective for depressive disorders (Cuijpers et al., 2008) and anxiety disorders (Barkowski et al., 2020).”
From A clinical effectiveness trial comparing ACT and CBT for inpatients with depressive and mixed mental disorders (2021) · cites this paper as Barkowski et al., 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 93 · Cited by 95
- Authors
- Barkowski, S., Schwartze, D., Strauss, B., Burlingame, G. M., & Rosendahl, J.
- Affiliations
- Jena University Hospital (DE)
- Brigham Young University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rosendahl, Jenny
- Venue
- Psychotherapy Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-02-24
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 965-982
- ISSN
- 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4381
- OpenAlex
- W3008342026
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Disorders
- Keywords
- group therapy, anxiety disorders, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, treatment efficacy, individual psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, common factors
- MeSH terms
- Phobia, Social, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Psychotherapy, Group
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