Cognitive behavioural therapy for social anxiety disorder in people with bipolar disorder: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social anxiety disorder increases the likelihood of unfavourable outcomes in people with bipolar disorder. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is the first-line treatment for social anxiety disorder. However, people with bipolar disorder have been excluded from the studies that this recommendation is based on. METHOD: We completed a case series to obtain initial data on whether CBT is an acceptable, safe, and effective treatment for social anxiety disorder in people with bipolar disorder. RESULTS: Eleven euthymic participants with bipolar disorder attended up to sixteen treatment and three follow-up sessions of CBT for social anxiety disorder. Participants attended on average 95% of the offered CBT sessions. No adverse events were reported. Participants' mean score on the Social Phobia Inventory decreased from 46.5 (SD 6.6) before the treatment to 19.8 (SD 11.9) at the end of the sixteen-session intervention and further to 15.8 (SD 10.3) by the end of the 3-month follow-up. This degree of improvement is equivalent to the effect observed in studies of CBT for social anxiety disorder in people without severe mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: This case series provides preliminary evidence that CBT is acceptable, safe, and effective for treating social anxiety disorder in people with bipolar disorder during euthymia. A randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm these findings, and to establish whether treatment for social anxiety disorder improves the course of bipolar disorder.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".