A Pilot Study Comparing a Community of Practice Group Therapy Program with and without Concurrent Ketamine-assisted Therapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Healthcare practitioners (HCPs) are facing a mental health crisis. Group therapies have long been used to treat symptoms associated with PTSD, anxiety and/or depression, however no studies have investigated the role of implementing group therapy with and without ketamine-assisted therapies (KaT). Objectives The current study investigated the effects of the Roots to Thrive (RTT) group therapy intervention both with and without adjunctive KaT. Methods In the present study we conduct a secondary analysis of data derived from the 12-week group psychotherapy program to that of the same program with adjunct KaT. Participants were administered a series of validated psychiatric assessment tools before and after the 12-weeks. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of treatment resistant mental health condition (depression, PTSD and/or generalized anxiety disorder) and a score of 15 or greater on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). To assess the effects of time x group interaction and calculate differences between the RTT only and RTT-KaT subgroups, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Effect sizes were calculated through partial eta-squared. Results Forty-nine HCPs with treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety and/or depression were treated with the RTT group therapy model to target their symptoms. A total of 49 individuals (34 female, 10 male, 3 other) with a median age of 47 years old (SD 14.19) participated in the study. There were no statistically significant differences between RTT only (n=14) and RTT KaT (n=35) subgroups across gender [X2 (1, N=44) = 2.84, ns] or age [F (1, 36) = .257, p = .615]. From pre- to post-treatment, all patients showed significant reductions in scores of PTSD (from 39.3 to 20.99), depression (from 15.5 to 7.7) and anxiety (from 15.5 to 6.2). Two-way repeated measures ANOVA did not reveal any significant between-group differences between the RTT and RTT-KaT subgroups. Conclusions This observational study provides preliminary support for the potential of the RTT community of care model of group therapy and adds to a small but growing body of knowledge on the integration of group therapy and the broad category of psychedelic psychotherapies. Given the rapid proliferation and expansion of KaT clinics throughout North America, the finding that KaT did not appear to impact changes related to the RTT intervention suggests the need for further research to better explain the potential impacts of relational transference between the two groups, and the distinct contributions of ketamine administration in a group therapy context. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».