Blog

Schwartze, D., Barkowski, S., Strauss, B., Burlingame, G., Barth, J., & Rosendahl, J. (2017). Efficacy of group therapy for panic disorder: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Group Dynamics, 21, 77-93.

Panic disorder (PD) is characterized by recurrent episodes of intense fear or discomfort accompanied by physical and cognitive symptoms that may include sweating, trembling, or fear of dying. The panic attacks can lead to avoidant behavior that results in isolation, impaired functioning and lower quality of life. Often, those with PD also experience agoraphobia or an intense fear of having a panic attack in public, open spaces, or in a crowd. PD has a lifetime prevalence of 5% among adults in the US. Patients with PD use health care services at a higher rate than the general population, and those with PD may not receive adequate treatment. An evidence-based treatment for PD is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Practice guidelines for PD recommend pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy with CBT. However, these practice guidelines do not take into account group therapy for PD. In this meta analysis, Schwartze and colleagues included group treatment studies of PD that were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and in which direct comparisons of group therapy to other treatments were conducted. RCTs of direct comparisons provide the best quality evidence of the efficacy of a treatment approach. The authors included 15 studies (14 of which were of group CBT for panic) that had 864 patients. There was a large significant effect on panic and agoraphobic symptoms favoring group over no-treatment controls (k = 9; g = 1.08; 95% CI [0.82, 1.34]; p = .001). Similar results were found for depressive symptoms and general anxiety symptoms. There was no significant difference between group and alternative PD treatments (pharmacotherapy, individual therapy) on the primary outcomes (k = 6; g = 0.18; 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49]; p = .264). Again similar results were found for depression and anxiety symptoms. In total 78% of patients with PD were symptom-free after group psychotherapy, compared with 33% in no-treatment control groups, and 71% in alternative treatment.

Practice Implications

The number of studies were small, but the results of this meta analysis indicate that group therapy is an effective treatment for PD and perhaps as effective as typical alternatives like pharmacotherapy and individual therapy. Group CBT protocols usually involve multiple components such as (a) education regarding the etiology and maintenance of PD, (b) cognitive restructuring (identifying and modifying panic-related cognitions), (c) exposure to external situations (in vivo exposure) or internal bodily sensations (interoceptive exposure), (d) relaxation training and/or breathing retraining. Group therapy may also provide a lower cost, more accessible, and possibly as effective treatment alternative than individual therapy for PD.

Burlingame, G.M., Seebeck, J.D., Janis, R.A., Whitcomb, K.E., Barkowski, S., Rosendahl, J., & Strauss, B. (2016). Outcome differences between individual and group formats when identical and nonidentical treatments, patients, and doses are compared: A 25-year meta-analytic perspective. Psychotherapy, 53, 446-461.

With increasing service demands being put on mental health systems, clinicians and administrators are looking to more efficient ways of providing care to more patients. One option is group therapy in which more patients can be treated with fewer resources. However, are groups as effective as individual therapy for mental disorders? This meta-analysis by Burlingame and colleagues addresses this question by examining 67 studies in which group and individual therapy were directly compared within the same study. The majority of studies included adults with anxiety, mood, or substance use disorders, with some studies focusing on medical conditions, eating or personality disorders. Two-thirds of studies were of cognitive-behavioral therapy, but other treatment types like interpersonal, psychodynamic, and supportive therapy were also tested. Groups were defined as having at least 3 patients per group. The average number of sessions for group and individual therapy were equivalent (group M = 14.67, SD = 8.75; individual 15.94, SD = 14.37)), and as expected group therapy sessions were longer in minutes (M = 100.39, SD = 30.87) than individual therapy sessions (M = 56.55, SD = 14.37) given the multi-person demands of groups. Groups were primarily closed to new members after starting, they tended to have homogenous membership based on diagnosis, and groups tended to be co-led by 2 therapists. Individual and group therapy were not significantly different for all disorders and outcomes at post-treatment (g = -0.03; 95%CI = -0.10, 0.04), short-term follow-up (g = 0.01; 95% CI = -0.13, 0.11), and long-term follow-up (g = 0.00; 95% CI= -0.12, 0.13). Drop out rates for group therapy (17.28%) and individual therapy (14.96%) were not significantly different (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.90, 1.33), and patients were likely to accept group therapy (88.76%) as often as they accepted individual therapy (84.83%) when one or the other was offered. Pre- to post-treatment effect sizes were moderately large for both interventions (group: g = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.48, 0.72; individual: g = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.42, 0.65). Patients presenting with depression, substance us, anxiety, or eating disorders had the highest level of improvement.

Practice Implications

When identical treatments, patients, and doses are compared, individual and group therapy resulted in equivalent outcomes across of a variety of disorders. This is good news for clinicians and agencies looking to maximize resources to treat more patients. However, running a group is more complex than providing individual therapy. Finding a sufficient number of patients to start a group, assessing and preparing each patient prior to starting a group, writing a note per patient per session, and managing attrition is logistically more challenging. Further, most therapists are not formally trained to provide group interventions and so they may find the task of managing a substantially larger amount of within-session group process information to be complex. Finally, as Burlingame and colleagues indicate, there are institutional considerations so that group programs require a milieu that supports group referrals and flexibility in scheduling. Nevertheless the findings of this meta analysis indicate the potential for group therapy to provide efficacious treatments for mental disorders.

Munder, T., Brütsch, O., Leonhart, R., Gerger, H., & Barth, J. (2013). Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: An overview of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 501-511.

Although evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy is largely uncontested, there remains debate about whether one type of treatment is more effective than another. This debate continues despite a recent American Psychological Association (APA) resolution on the equivalent efficacy of most systematic psychotherapy approaches. There are many aspects to this debate (e.g., some treatments are more researched than others and so appear to be better; symptom focused measurements are more sensitive to change and so may favour one treatment over another; some treatments are more amenable to manualization and short term application; etc.). One element of the debate that has received a lot of attention is researcher allegiance. Researcher allegiance refers to researchers preferring one treatment approach over another, and this preference may bias comparative outcome trials in favour of the preferred therapy. Researcher allegiance is measured by assessing primary researchers’ publication history or by their self-declared preference for a particular therapy approach. There exist 30 meta analyses that assessed researcher allegiance since the 1980s. These meta analyses focused on different therapy types, client populations (adults, children), and research designs (randomized trials, naturalistic effectiveness studies). However, some meta analyses have reported contradictory results for the researcher allegiance effect. This could be due to the different foci of the meta analyses (i.e., different treatment approaches, patient populations, age groups, etc.), and also possibly due the allegiance of those conducting the meta analyses. Munder and colleagues (2013) conducted a mega analysis of these meta analyses. As the name implies, a mega analysis aggregates the findings of available meta analyses. Munder and colleagues found a significant moderate effect of researcher allegiance. Researcher allegiance was consistent across patient populations, age groups, outcome measures, type of study design, and year of publication.

Practice Implications

As the APA resolution indicates, psychotherapy is the informed and intentional application of clinical methods and interpersonal stances derived from established psychological principles. Evidence-based practice in psychotherapy is "the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture and preferences". The results of this mega analysis undermine the claim of some comparative outcome studies that suggest that one evidence-based psychotherapy is more effective than another.

Author email: tmunder@uni-kassel.de

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from thenHandbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content can be viewed on Amazon.

Burlingame, G.M., Strauss, B., & Joyce, A.S. (2013). Change mechanisms and effectiveness of small group treatments. In M.J. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6^thed.), pp. 640-689. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

Group treatments are the most common types of interventions offered in community, organizational, institutional, and hospital settings. They occur in many contexts including: outpatients, inpatients, day hospital, private practice, community health, support groups, drop-in centres, and educational organizations. Despite the extent of their application, group treatments receive relatively little research attention compared to individual psychotherapy or medication interventions. (Not to mention the pervasive and mistaken notion that group therapy is like doing individual therapy with 8-10 patients at once, or that individual therapy training is sufficient to be expert in group therapy). There are many reasons for this relatively lower amount of research, including the lack of expertise in and understanding of group practice among clinical researchers, and the substantially greater difficulty in running a clinical trial of group therapy (of the latter I have ample experience and war wounds). Nevertheless, Burlingame and colleagues summarized more than 250 studies that estimated the efficacy or effectiveness of group therapy for 12 disorders or populations. The findings indicate good or excellent evidence for the efficacy of group treatments for many disorders or patient groups (e.g., panic, social phobia, OCD, eating disorders, substance abuse, trauma related disorders, coping with breast cancer, schizophrenia, and personality disorders). There are also promising results for other disorders (e.g., mood, pain, and inpatients). Although there are substantially more studies on group CBT, most studies that compare different models (including IPT, psychodynamic, DBT, etc.) often produce equivalent outcomes. There is also lots of evidence that group therapy is as effective as individual therapy or medications for most disorders. In one U.S. study on panic disorder, group psychotherapy was the most cost effective (i.e., cost per rate of improvement) of the interventions ($246) compared to individual therapy ($565) and medications ($447). There is also research on the effects of specific characteristics of groups. For example, research on group composition (i.e., heterogenous vs homogeneous in terms of patient population or functioning) has produced mixed results, though there is emerging evidence that heterogeneous groups tend to benefit those who are lower functioning. Further, research on group cohesion (i.e., the bond between the individual and the group) which is a construct related to but distinct from alliance, is positively associated with treatment outcomes with a moderate effect size.

Practice Implications

Group treatments are as effective as individual therapy or medications, and are likely more cost effective. However group therapy is more complicated to practice and to study. Burlingame and colleagues suggest using empirically validated interventions, and ongoing assessment of client outcomes. They also suggest following the American Group Psychotherapy Association (AGPA) practice guidelines (see the Resources page on our web site), that include best practices for creating a successful group, appropriately selecting clients, preparing clients for group, evidence based interventions, and ethics issues related to group practice. Finally, Burlingame and colleagues emphasize using AGPA recommended measures and resources in developing and assessing a therapy group. These include: (1) group selection and group preparation which may involve handouts for group leaders and members about what to expect and how to get the most from group therapy; (2) assessing group processes repeatedly during group therapy using measures like the Therapeutic Factors Inventory or the Working Alliance Inventory; and (3) measuring client outcomes by using an instrument like the Outcome Questionnaire-45. Repeated measurement and feedback of processes and outcomes to the therapist may improve the group’s effectiveness.