A Cognitive-Behavioral Group for Patients With Various Anxiety Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) protocols for each of the anxiety disorders are robust and effective but are best suited for specialty clinics. This study assessed a format more suitable for general clinics: a single protocol based on standard CBT techniques designed to treat patients who have different anxiety disorders in the same group. METHODS: Potential participants in Vancouver, British Columbia, were administered a structured clinical interview to identify those with major anxiety disorders: panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia; obsessive-compulsive disorder; social phobia; generalized anxiety disorder; specific phobia; and posttraumatic stress disorder. Forty-three percent of participants had more than one current anxiety diagnosis. Those with active substance abuse or dependence or with psychosis were excluded. A total of 152 patients were randomly assigned to immediate treatment in the 11-week CBT group or to a wait-list control group. The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was administered at baseline, at the end of treatment or of the waiting period, and six months later. RESULTS: Reductions in BAI scores for participants in the immediate-treatment groups were greater than those for the control group participants. Patients with panic disorder in particular appeared to benefit. Outcomes for the immediate-treatment group were superior in terms of clinically significant changes, defined as a 20% or 40% improvement. Reductions in BAI scores continued to be present six months later. The improvements correspond to a medium effect size (Cohen's d=.50). CONCLUSIONS: A group CBT protocol for mixed anxiety disorders may make effective treatment more widely available.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".