Patients' and Therapists' Experiences of Standardized Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Needs for a Personalized Approach.

Personalizing psychotherapy can be challenging within standardized group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), in which sessions are structured according to a protocol and must accommodate the needs and preferences of multiple patients. In the current study, we aimed to examine patients' and therapists' experiences of standardized group CBT and identify their perceptions of different patient needs. Furthermore, we explored how these needs can inform possible content of add-on interventions for patients who are not improving as expected during group CBT.We conducted 21 individual in-depth interviews with patients with depression and their therapists about their experiences during group CBT with Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) and feedback. Interviews were analyzed by using a hermeneutic-phenomenological thematic analysis. Five themes, representing different patient needs, were identified: (1) Individual attention, (2) Psychological exploration, (3) A focus on the patient's life outside of therapy, (4) Extended assessment, and (5) Agreement on therapeutic tasks.The study supports that "one size does not fit all" when it comes to psychotherapy. Patients have varying needs when they are not making progress in therapy, and these needs, when unmet, can negatively impact the overall experience of group CBT. By acknowledging the unique needs of each patient and providing additional individual sessions as necessary, we can move towards a more personalized approach that maximizes the benefits of group psychotherapy.

What is the effect of using collaborative assessment on symptomatology as an intervention in the treatment of mental illness? A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians usually conduct diagnostic assessments in order to establish a diagnosis or to evaluate the effect of treatment. Two meta-analyses suggest that diagnostic assessment administered in collaboration with the patient and personalized feedback might have a therapeutic effect. METHODS: We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on symptomatology when using assessment as a therapeutic intervention for patients with psychiatric illnesses. We will search in five relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently select papers following pre-defined eligibility criteria, extract data, and assess the quality of included studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of psychological assessment with other psychotherapeutic interventions in populations of patients will be included in the meta-analysis. We will extract data on symptom-related outcomes, quality of life, dropout, and re-diagnosis and use meta-analysis techniques to compute the effect size of interventions using assessment as a psychotherapeutic intervention. The review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Risk of bias will be assessed by using the Risk of Bias tool RoB 2.0 of the Cochrane Collaboration, and the certainty of the body of evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DISCUSSION: THE RESULTS WILL BE ABLE TO INFORM CLINICIANS AND POLICYMAKERS ON THE EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT AND, DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS, COULD LEAD TO A RECOMMENDATION FOR MODIFIED ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND APPROACHES IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES. ULTIMATELY, IT MIGHT IMPROVE THE TREATMENT OUTCOME IN MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021270567.

Transdiagnostic versus Diagnosis-Specific Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders and Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The Unified Protocol for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP) delivered in a group format could facilitate the implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy of group UP and diagnosis-specific cognitive behavioral therapy (dCBT) for anxiety and depression in outpatient mental health services. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multi-center, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial (RCT), we assigned 291 patients with major depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, or agoraphobia to 14 weekly sessions in mixed-diagnosis UP or single-diagnosis dCBT groups. The primary test was non-inferiority, using a priori criteria, on the World Health Organisation 5 Well-Being Index (WHO-5) at the end of the treatment. Secondary outcomes were functioning and symptoms. We assessed outcomes at baseline, end-of-treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. A modified per-protocol analysis was performed. RESULTS: At end-of-treatment, WHO-5 mean scores for patients in UP (n = 148) were non-inferior to those of patients in dCBT (n = 143; mean difference -2.94; 95% CI -8.10 to 2.21). Results were inconclusive for the WHO-5 at the 6-month follow-up. Results for secondary outcomes were non-inferior at end-of-treatment and the 6-month follow-up. Client satisfaction and rates of attrition, response, remission, and deterioration were similar across conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT demonstrated non-inferior acute-phase outcomes of group-delivered UP compared with dCBT for major depressive disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and agoraphobia in outpatient mental health services. The long-term effects of UP on well-being need further investigation. If study findings are replicated, UP should be considered a viable alternative to dCBT for common anxiety disorders and depression in outpatient mental health services.