4.4 Article

A sorrow shared is a sorrow halved? A three-arm randomized controlled trial comparing internet-based clinician-guided individual versus group treatment for social anxiety disorder

期刊

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 14-26

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2016.07.001

关键词

Internet treatment; ICBT; Social anxiety disorder; Guided self-help; Group therapy; Peer support; RCT

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PP00P1_144824/1]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PP00P1_144824] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A growing body of evidence suggests that internet-based cognitive behavioural treatments (ICBT) are effective to treat social anxiety disorder (SAD). Whereas the efficacy of clinician-guided ICBT has been established, ICBT in a group format has not yet been systematically investigated. This three-arm RCT compared the efficacy of clinician-guided group ICBT (GT) with clinician guided individual ICBT (IT) and a wait-list (WL). A total of 149 individuals meeting the diagnostic criteria for SAD were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Primary endpoints were self-report measures of SAD and diagnostic status taken at baseline, after the twelve-week intervention and at six-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints were symptoms of depression, interpersonal problems and general symptomatology. At post-treatment, both active conditions showed superior outcome regarding SAD symptoms (GT vs. WL: d = 0.84-0.74; IT vs. WL: d = 0.94-1.22). The two active conditions did not differ significantly in symptom reduction (d = 0.12-0.26, all ps > 0.63), diagnostic response rate or attrition. Treatment gains were maintained at follow-up. The group format reduced weekly therapist time per participant by 71% (IT: 17 min, GT: 5 min). Findings indicate that a clinician-guided group format is a promising approach in treating SAD. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据