A Naturalistic Comparison of Group Transdiagnostic Behaviour Therapy (TBT) and Disorder-Specific Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Groups for the Affective Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transdiagnostic psychotherapies are designed to apply the same underlying treatment principles across a set of psychiatric disorders, without significant tailoring to specific diagnoses. Several transdiagnostic psychotherapy protocols have been developed recently, each of which has its own strengths and weaknesses. One promising treatment is Transdiagnostic Behaviour Therapy (TBT), in that it is one of the few transdiagnostic treatments to date shown to be effective in patients with depressive and anxiety disorders. However, TBT has only been investigated via individual psychotherapy. AIMS: The present study investigated the effectiveness of a group protocol for TBT, compared with disorder-specific group psychotherapies, in a naturalistic setting. METHOD: 109 participants with various diagnoses of affective disorders completed either group TBT (n = 37) or a disorder-specific group psychotherapy (n = 72). Measures included assessments of psychiatric symptomatology and transdiagnostic impairment at baseline and post-treatment. RESULTS: Overall, participants in the TBT group demonstrated significant improvements across all measures. When compared with disorder-specific groups, no statistical differences were observed between groups across symptoms; however, participants in the TBT group demonstrated roughly twice the treatment effect sizes in transdiagnostic impairment compared with participants in the disorder-specific groups. In addition, when participants from the most well-represented diagnosis and disorder-specific treatment (social anxiety disorder) were investigated separately, participants in the TBT group demonstrated significantly larger improvements in comorbid depressive symptoms than participants in the disorder-specific treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Pending replication and additional comparison studies, group TBT may provide an effective group treatment option for patients with affective disorders.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".