Effectiveness and predictors of group cognitive behaviour therapy outcome for generalised anxiety disorder in an out-patient hospital setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an empirically supported treatment for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Little is known about the effectiveness of CBT for GAD in real-world treatment settings. Aim: This study investigated the effectiveness of group CBT and predictors of treatment response in an out-patient hospital clinic. Method: Participants ( n = 386) with GAD participated in 12 sessions of group CBT at an out-patient clinic. Of those who provided at least partial data ( n = 326), 84.5% completed treatment. Most questionnaires were completed at pre- and post-treatment; worry severity was assessed weekly. Results: Group CBT led to improvements in chronic worry ( d = –0.91, n = 118), depressive symptoms ( d = –1.22, n = 172), GAD symptom severity ( d = –0.65, n = 171), intolerance of uncertainty (IU; d = –0.46, n = 174) and level of functional impairment ( d = –0.35, n = 169). Greater pre-treatment GAD symptom severity ( d = –0.17, n = 293), chronic worry ( d = –0.20, n = 185), functional impairment ( d = –0.12, n = 292), and number of comorbid diagnoses ( d = –0.13, n = 299) predicted greater improvement in past week worry over treatment. Biological sex, age, depression symptom severity, number of treatment sessions attended, and IU did not predict change in past week worry over time. Discussion: These findings provide support for the effectiveness of group CBT for GAD and suggest the outcomes are robust and are either not impacted or are slightly positively impacted by several demographic and clinical factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".