MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806099783 · doi:10.1017/s1352465818000309

A Naturalistic Comparison of Group Transdiagnostic Behaviour Therapy (TBT) and Disorder-Specific Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Groups for the Affective Disorders

2018· article· en· W2806099783 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical psychologyPsychologyAnxietyGroup psychotherapyMajor depressive disorderPsychotherapistCognitionPsychiatryCognitive behavioral therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it