Randomized trial of cognitive behaviour group therapy and a mindfulness‐based intervention for social anxiety disorder: Preliminary findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have evaluated the possible efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for social anxiety disorder (SAD). However, few trials have compared MBIs with a first-line treatment. This study evaluated the relative efficacy of an MBI adapted for SAD (MBI-SAD) to cognitive behaviour group therapy (CBGT) for SAD. Participants were randomized to 12 weekly group sessions of the MBI-SAD (n = 52) or CBGT (n = 45). Results revealed that CBGT fared better than the MBI-SAD in reducing clinician- and self-rated social anxiety severity. The difference between the MBI-SAD and CBGT exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margin for our primary outcome the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, but findings are inconclusive as the width of the confidence interval extended in both directions surrounding the noninferiority margin. The MBI-SAD compared favourably with CBGT in improving other indices of well-being (depression, self-esteem, satisfaction with life, social adjustment). Contrary to expectation, the MBI-SAD did not produce greater changes in mindfulness and self-compassion than CBGT. Overall, results confirm that CBGT is robust treatment for SAD and should be considered as first-line treatment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".