Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Heterogeneous Anxiety Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence assessing the outcome of cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety is based on protocols specifically tailored for individual disorders. To date, there is little research that would assess a mode of delivery that is designed for routine service delivery in typical clinical settings, i.e. group cognitive behavioural therapy for unselected, mixed groups of anxiety disorders. The objective of this pilot study is to use program evaluation methods to assess the immediate and enduring improvements following a 12-week Anxiety Management Group. Group participants had any of 5 anxiety disorders and described related avoidance. The weekly 2-hour group sessions and daily homework tasks were guided by a participant handbook. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and group completion (n = 70); a subset also provided 6-month follow-up data. The results from post-group scores on 2 self-report measures show immediate reductions equivalent to an effect size of eta = 0.73 (p < 0.001). The effect is maintained at 6-month follow-up. This program evaluation suggests that group cognitive behavioural therapy for heterogeneous anxiety disorders may be effective in a routine clinical setting. A more rigorous study of this heterogeneous format appears justified.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".