Group cognitive–behavioural treatment with long‐term follow‐up and targeting self‐identity for hoarding disorder: An open trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Group cognitive-behavioural therapy (G-CBT) for hoarding disorder (HD) may be an intervention of choice, considering its efficacy, low costs, and impact on comorbid anxiety and depression. But although G-CBT and modifications of G-CBT have been applied, none has assessed G-CBT efficacy at follow-up. In the current open-label pilot study, we tested the efficacy of G-CBT at posttreatment and 6-month follow-up and whether the inclusion of targeted reasoning and self-identity components added to G-CBT efficacy. METHODS: Participants (n = 16) with the HD according to the DSM-5 criteria without major comorbid conditions and not requiring immediate medical intervention were retained. The intervention included a 20-week G-CBT with the inclusion of modules on reasoning and self-identity. RESULTS: Very large/large effect sizes, depending on the outcome measure, were observed at posttreatment. Also, HD severity decreased from posttreatment to 6-month follow-up. All participants showed reliable change from pretreatment to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results emphasize the efficacy of G-CBT with additional targeted reasoning and self-components.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".