Cognitive behavioral analysis system of psychotherapy (CBASP) for treatment-resistant depression: Adaptation to a group modality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective CBASP has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic depression using an individual treatment modality but has not yet been tested using a group modality, for treatment-resistant major depression. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a CBASP approach adapted to group therapy for treatment-resistant, depressed, psychiatric outpatients. The efficacy of Group-CBASP is examined with regards to various outcomes including depressive symptoms and psychosocial functioning. A secondary objective is to assess whether Group-CBASP improves the psychosocial functioning and decreases the social isolation and avoidance of these patients and helps them develop more adaptive social skills, which becomes a protective factor against relapse into depression. Results Group-CBASP is effective in significantly reducing depressive symptomatology. Depression and social adjustment have significantly improved in both overall functioning and in specific role areas. Emotion-oriented coping, which is a maladaptive way of coping using one's emotional reactivity, has significantly decreased. Patients demonstrate more interpersonal confidence and engagement. We can observe a relationship emerging between the use of task-oriented coping strategies and a decrease in interpersonal distress. Finally, interpersonal dominance appears to be associated with improvements in depression and coping skills. Conclusion The next step involves the inclusion of a behavioural-activation comparison group to determine if Group-CBASP is contributing uniquely to these changes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".