Cited by 132Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Group psychological therapies for depression in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Huntley, Alyson L., Araya, Ricardo, Salisbury, Chris·2012·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Psychological therapies have been shown to be effective in the treatment of depression. However, evidence is focused on individually delivered therapies, with less evidence for group-based therapies. Aims: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of group-based psychological therapies for depression in primary care and the community. Method: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group database from inception to July 2010. The Cochrane risk of bias methodology was applied. Results: Twenty-three studies were included. The majority showed considerable risk of bias. Analysis of group cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) v. usual care alone (14 studies) showed a significant effect in favour of group CBT immediately post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.55 (95% CI −0.78 to −0.32)). There was some evidence of benefit being maintained at short-term (SMD =–0.47 (95% CI −1.06 to 0.12)) and medium- to long-term follow-up (SMD =–0.47 (95% CI – 0.87 to −0.08)). Studies of group CBT v. individually delivered CBT therapy (7 studies) showed a moderate treatment effect in favour of individually delivered CBT immediately post-treatment (SMD = 0.38 (95% CI 0.09–0.66)) but no evidence of difference at short- or medium- to long-term follow-up. Four studies described comparisons for three other types of group psychological therapies. Conclusions: Group CBT confers benefit for individuals who are clinically depressed over that of usual care alone. Individually delivered CBT is more effective than group CBT immediately following treatment but after 3 months there is no evidence of difference. The quality of evidence is poor. Evidence about group psychological therapies not based on CBT is particularly limited.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.092049

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?

  • Group therapy is less effective than individual therapy at the end of treatment and has a higher dropout rate, although no differences were found at follow-up.

    “However, group therapy was less effective than individual therapy at the end of treatment and had a higher dropout rate, although no differences were found at follow-up.77”

    From Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [77]

    The “Group CBT v. individual CBT therapy” section reports better outcomes for individual CBT immediately after treatment and no evidence of a difference at short- or longer-term follow-up. It does not report a higher dropout rate for group therapy; the “Individual CBT v. group CBT” section instead notes that four of seven studies gave no dropout details. The comparison also concerns CBT specifically, rather than group and individual therapy generally. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Meta-analyses concluded that group psychological therapy for depression is more effective than treatment as usual.

    “Meta-analyses that evaluated efficacy of group psychological therapy for depression concluded that it is more effective than treatment as usual.77,78”

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: 5

  1. [8]8. Epstein D. Aerobic activity versus group cognitive therapy: an evaluative study contrasting interventions for the alleviation of clinical depression. Diss Abstr Int 1986; 47: 3952.
  2. [11]11. Hautzinger M, Welz S. Cognitive behavioral therapy for depressed older outpatients: a controlled randomized, controlled trial. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2004; 37: 427-35.
  3. [19]19. Banken DM. Group versus Individual Cognitive-Behavioural Treatment for Depression. Dissertation, Washington State University, 1993.
  4. [21]21. Shapiro J, Sank Li, Shaffer CS, Donovan DC. Cost effectiveness of individual vs. group cognitive behavior therapy for problems of depression and anxiety in an HMO population. J Clin Psychol 1982; 38: 674-7.
  5. [25]25. Zettle RD, Haflich JL, Reynolds RA. Responsivity to cognitive therapy as a function of treatment format and client personality dimensions. J Clin Psychol 1992; 48: 787-97.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huntley, A. L., Araya, R., & Salisbury, C.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Araya, Ricardo
  • Salisbury, Chris
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2012-03
Volume
200
Issue
3
Pages
184-190
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2160954552
Cited by
132
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
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 › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
depression, group cognitive behavioral therapy, primary care, community mental health, treatment efficacy, usual care comparison, long-term follow-up
MeSH terms
Community Mental Health Services, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depression, Humans, Primary Health Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Group, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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