Cited by 80Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

Randomized comparative study of group versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder: Group vs. Individual CBT for OCD

Jónsson, H., Hougaard, E., Bennedsen, B. E.·2011·Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of group and individual cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). METHOD: One hundred and ten out-patients with OCD were randomly assigned to 15 sessions of either group CBT or individual CBT. Outcome measures were administered before and after treatment, as well as at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The study was supplemented by a meta-analysis of accomplished comparative studies of group vs. individual CBT for OCD. RESULTS: Large and stable pre-post effect sizes were found for both treatment conditions in the study (d = 1.06-1.24 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale). There were no significant between-group differences in outcome at any data point (ds= -0.13 to 0.15). The meta-analysis of four accomplished comparative studies (including the present one) found a between-group mean effect size of (d= 0.15 favouring individual over group CBT at posttreatment (95% confidence interval, -0.12, 0.42). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that OCD can be treated effectively with a group format of CBT, thus sparing some therapist resources, although the four accomplished comparative studies do not rule out the possibility of a small superiority of individually conducted CBT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2010.01613.x

Cites

24 of 24 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jónsson, H., Hougaard, E., & Bennedsen, B. E.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Jónsson, H.
Venue
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-10-12
Volume
123
Issue
5
Pages
387-397
ISSN
0001-690X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1825303032
Cited by
80
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Aarhus Universitetshospital
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
obsessive-compulsive disorder, group cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment effectiveness, outpatient care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Compulsive Behavior, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Outpatients, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Group, Surveys and Questionnaires, Psychotherapeutic Processes, 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