A Pilot Study Comparing a Community of Practice Group Therapy Program with and without Concurrent Ketamine-assisted Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Healthcare practitioners (HCPs) are facing a mental health crisis. Group therapies have long been used to treat symptoms associated with PTSD, anxiety and/or depression, however no studies have investigated the role of implementing group therapy with and without ketamine-assisted therapies (KaT). Objectives The current study investigated the effects of the Roots to Thrive (RTT) group therapy intervention both with and without adjunctive KaT. Methods In the present study we conduct a secondary analysis of data derived from the 12-week group psychotherapy program to that of the same program with adjunct KaT. Participants were administered a series of validated psychiatric assessment tools before and after the 12-weeks. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of treatment resistant mental health condition (depression, PTSD and/or generalized anxiety disorder) and a score of 15 or greater on the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). To assess the effects of time x group interaction and calculate differences between the RTT only and RTT-KaT subgroups, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Effect sizes were calculated through partial eta-squared. Results Forty-nine HCPs with treatment-resistant PTSD, anxiety and/or depression were treated with the RTT group therapy model to target their symptoms. A total of 49 individuals (34 female, 10 male, 3 other) with a median age of 47 years old (SD 14.19) participated in the study. There were no statistically significant differences between RTT only (n=14) and RTT KaT (n=35) subgroups across gender [X2 (1, N=44) = 2.84, ns] or age [F (1, 36) = .257, p = .615]. From pre- to post-treatment, all patients showed significant reductions in scores of PTSD (from 39.3 to 20.99), depression (from 15.5 to 7.7) and anxiety (from 15.5 to 6.2). Two-way repeated measures ANOVA did not reveal any significant between-group differences between the RTT and RTT-KaT subgroups. Conclusions This observational study provides preliminary support for the potential of the RTT community of care model of group therapy and adds to a small but growing body of knowledge on the integration of group therapy and the broad category of psychedelic psychotherapies. Given the rapid proliferation and expansion of KaT clinics throughout North America, the finding that KaT did not appear to impact changes related to the RTT intervention suggests the need for further research to better explain the potential impacts of relational transference between the two groups, and the distinct contributions of ketamine administration in a group therapy context. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".