CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Heterogeneous Anxiety Disorders

Erickson, David H.·2003·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
DOI 10.1080/16506070310001686
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Evidence assessing the outcome of cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety is based on protocols specifically tailored for individual disorders. To date, there is little research that would assess a mode of delivery that is designed for routine service delivery in typical clinical settings, i.e. group cognitive behavioural therapy for unselected, mixed groups of anxiety disorders. The objective of this pilot study is to use program evaluation methods to assess the immediate and enduring improvements following a 12-week Anxiety Management Group. Group participants had any of 5 anxiety disorders and described related avoidance. The weekly 2-hour group sessions and daily homework tasks were guided by a participant handbook. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and group completion (n = 70); a subset also provided 6-month follow-up data. The results from post-group scores on 2 self-report measures show immediate reductions equivalent to an effect size of eta = 0.73 (p < 0.001). The effect is maintained at 6-month follow-up. This program evaluation suggests that group cognitive behavioural therapy for heterogeneous anxiety disorders may be effective in a routine clinical setting. A more rigorous study of this heterogeneous format appears justified.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16506070310001686

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • In this study, only participants who completed all the treatment modules were considered completers, whereas the rest were treated as dropouts, although in other studies, only participants who completed a percentage of the modules were considered completers.

    “In this study, only participants who completed all the treatment modules were considered completers, whereas the rest were treated as dropouts, although in other studies, only participants who completed a percentage of the modules were considered completers [92,93].”

    From Negative and positive affect regulation in a transdiagnostic internet-based protocol for emotional disorders: Randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as [92]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 18 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Erickson, D. H.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Erickson, David H.
ORCID
Erickson, David H.
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-11
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
179-186
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
DOI
10.1080/16506070310001686
OpenAlex
W2009179512
Cited by
62
References
18
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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
group cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety disorders, avoidance, maintenance of treatment effects, program evaluation, homework

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