Understanding process in group cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Group cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (GCBTp) has shown to be effective in diminishing symptoms, as well as in improving other psychosocial dimensions such as self-esteem. But little is known regarding the processes that generate these therapeutic improvements and might be harnessed to further improve its effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed at investigating these processes, particularly those linked to interpersonal relationships. DESIGN: The participants were all assessed at baseline, were given 24 sessions of GCBTp over the course of 3 months and were assessed again at post-treatment as well as 6 months later (9 months from baseline). METHOD: Sixty-six individuals with early psychosis took part in a study of GCBTp where therapist alliance and group cohesion were assessed at three time points during the therapy, and punctual (each session) self-perceptions on symptoms and optimism were collected. RESULTS: Improvements in symptoms (BPRS), self-esteem (SERS-SF) and in self-perceived therapeutic improvements (CHOICE) were linked to specific aspects of the alliance, group cohesion, as well as optimism. The variables retained were not always overall scores, suggesting the importance of the variables at key moments during the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The results clearly demonstrate the importance of the alliance and group cohesion, together significantly explaining improvements measured at post-therapy or follow-up. PRACTITIONER POINTS: This study has attempted to focus mostly on relational aspects, as well as on self-perceptions, in the context of a GCBTp for individuals with early psychosis. This study also showed that these therapeutic relationships are especially useful when they are more stable and at specific moments during the therapy, namely when more difficult psychological work is done.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".