Effectiveness of enhanced group cognitive behaviour therapy for older adults (CBT-OA) with depression and anxiety: A replication study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy for older adults (CBT-OA) modifies standard CBT to better address the needs of older adults, considering age-related impacts on learning. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Cassidy's manualized CBT-OA protocol (Cassidy, 2016a, 2016b) for late-life depression or anxiety in a larger sample at a different center. DESIGN: This retrospective observational study used a within-subject pre-/post-data design to evaluate the CBT-OA group for seniors with depression or anxiety. Outcome measure were compared before and after the CBT-OA intervention. A post-hoc analysis examined differential effects of age ('young-old' versus 'old-old'). SETTING: CBT-OA groups were held in an urban, community-based geriatric psychiatry outpatient setting from 2015-2019. PARTICIPANTS: The analysis included forty community-dwelling outpatients over 65 years old with symptoms of late-life depression and/or anxiety. INTERVENTION: Cassidy's manualized CBT-OA protocol for late-life depression or anxiety was used. Five CBT-OA series were held, each lasting 7-9 weeks (average of 8 weeks) with 2-h weekly sessions, involving 6-9 participants per series. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures included the self-reported Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, and Perceived Quality of Life Questionnaire. RESULTS: CBT-OA significantly improved mood, anxiety, and perceived quality of life, with the greatest gains in 'young-old' participants. CONCLUSION: This first replication study of Cassidy's CBT-OA protocol for late-life depression or anxiety showed similar positive findings. Future research should use a randomized-controlled design to examine CBT-OA's efficacy, considering different age groups, longer-term follow-up, and well-being measures aligned with positive psychiatry.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Reproducibility · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".