Does Prior Psychotherapy Experience Affect the Course of Cognitive-Behavioural Group Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine whether and how different patterns of psychotherapy history (no prior therapy, successful therapy experience, and unsuccessful therapy experience) affect the outcome of future treatment among patients undergoing cognitive-behavioural group therapy for social anxiety disorder. Method: Fifty-seven patients with varying histories of psychotherapy participating in cognitive-behavioural group treatment for social anxiety disorder were included in the study. Symptom severity (including anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, and global symptom severity) was assessed at pre-and posttreatment. A therapist-rated measure of patient therapy engagement was included as a process variable. Results: First-time therapy patients showed more favourable pretreatment variables and achieved greater benefit from group therapy. Among patients with unsuccessful therapy experience, substantial gains were attained by those who were able to actively engage in the therapy process. Patients rating previous therapies as successful could benefit the least and tended to stagnate. Possible explanations for group differences and clinical implications are discussed. Conclusions: Prior psychotherapy experience affects the course of cognitive-behavioural group therapy in patients with social phobias. While patients with negative therapy experience may need extensive support in being and remaining actively engaged, those rating previous therapies as successful should be assessed very carefully and may benefit from a major focus on relational aspects. Objectif: Examiner si les différents modèles d'antécédents de psychothérapie (pas de thérapie antérieure, expérience réussie de thérapie, et expérience de thérapie sans succès) affectent le résultat d'un futur traitement chez les patients d'une thérapie de groupe cognitivo-comportementale pour le trouble d'anxiété sociale, et le cas échéant, de quelle manière. Méthode: Cinquante-sept patients ayant divers antécédents de psychothérapie et participant à un traitement de groupe cognitivo-comportemental pour le trouble d'anxiété sociale ont été inclus dans l'étude. La gravité des symptômes (dont l'anxiété, la dépression, l'auto-efficacité et la gravité générale des symptômes) a été évaluée avant et après le traitement. Une mesure par le thérapeute de l'engagement du patient à la thérapie était incluse à titre de variable du processus. Résultats: Les patients en thérapie pour la première fois présentaient des variables prétraitement plus favorables et tiraient meilleur profit de la thérapie de groupe. Chez les patients ayant eu une expérience de thérapie sans succès, des gains substantiels ont été obtenus par ceux qui étaient capables de s'engager activement au processus thérapeutique. Les patients ayant estimé les thérapies antérieures réussies étaient ceux qui en bénéficiaient le moins et tendaient à stagner. Des explications possibles des différences entre les groupes et des implications cliniques sont présentées. Conclusions: L'expérience antérieure de psychothérapie affecte le cours de la thérapie de groupe cognitivo-comportementale chez les patients souffrant de phobie sociale. Alors que les patients ayant eu une expérience de thérapie négative peuvent avoir grand besoin d'aide pour s'engager activement et le demeurer, ceux qui estiment que leurs thérapies antérieures ont été réussies doivent être évalués très attentivement et peuvent bénéficier d'un fort accent
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".