Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T03:22:56.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group CBT for mild to moderate depression and anxiety: an evaluation of patient satisfaction within a primary care mental health team

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2020

Genevieve Young-Southward Open the ORCID record for Genevieve Young-Southward [Opens in a new window] ,
Alison Jackson  and
Julie Dunan
Genevieve Young-Southward*
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Department of Mental Health & Wellbeing, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Glasgow, UK
Alison Jackson
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow, Department of Mental Health & Wellbeing, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Glasgow, UK
Julie Dunan
Affiliation:
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, North West Primary Care Mental Health Team, Glasgow, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the UK there has been a drive towards facilitating swift access to psychological therapies. Groups are an efficient way to provide psychological interventions to a wide range of people and are recommended treatments for mild depression and anxiety, presentations commonly seen in primary care mental health teams. Group cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be clinically effective, but less is known about the acceptability of groups to patients. This study evaluated patient satisfaction with CBT groups running within a primary care mental health team in Scotland. Data from a routinely administered patient satisfaction questionnaire were collected. Likert-scale responses were analysed via frequencies and percentages, and free text responses were analysed via thematic analysis. Among those who completed a group, overall satisfaction was high. The qualitative analysis revealed that for many a group environment was therapeutic in itself, and the intervention provided service users with a range of skills with which to tackle their difficulties. However, others indicated that a group environment was unsuitable for their needs, and perceptions around the accessibility and relevance of group content were mixed. Indeed, drop-out rates were high, and perceptions of groups among those who did not attend the final session are not included in this analysis. Group dynamics may be both a facilitator of and a barrier to therapeutic benefit, depending on individual factors. Future studies could evaluate satisfaction among service users who drop out of interventions in order to inform future service delivery.

Key learning aims

  1. (1) To understand the utility of delivering CBT in a group format for mild to moderate depression and anxiety.

  2. (2) To understand service users’ perceptions regarding group CBT interventions via a mixed method inquiry.

  3. (3) To reflect on how group dynamics within group CBT may be both a facilitator of and a barrier to therapeutic benefit.

Keywords

anxietyCBTdepressionpatient satisfactionprimary care
Type
Original Research
Information
the Cognitive Behaviour Therapist , Volume 13 , 2020 , e8
Copyright
© British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Further reading

Kellett, S., Clarke, S., & Matthews, L. (2006). Session impact and outcome in group psychoeducative cognitive behavioural therapy. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 35, 335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellett, S., Clarke, S., & Matthews, L. (2007). Delivering group psychoeducational CBT in primary care: comparing outcomes with individual CBT and individual psychodynamic-interpersonal therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tikka, R., Jones, C., & Law, A. (2010). Is it acceptable to patients to have supported self-help interventions delivered through psycho-educational groups? A qualitative study on the reasons for dropout. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, 5, 36–42.Google Scholar

References

Barkham, M., Bewick, B., Mullin, T., Gilbody, S., Connell, J., Cahill, J., & Evans, C. (2013). The CORE-10: a short measure of psychological distress for routine use in the psychological therapies. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 13, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. S. L., Sellwood, K., Beecham, J. K., Slade, M., Andiappan, M., Landau, S., Johnson, T., & Smith, R. (2011). Outcome, costs and patient engagement for group and individual CBT for depression: a naturalistic clinical study. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 39, 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health (2006). Improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme. London.Google Scholar
Hofmann, S. G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I. J. J., Sawyer, A. T., & Fang, A. (2012). The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy: a review of meta analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellett, S., Clarke, S., & Matthews, L. (2006). Session impact and outcome in group psychoeducative cognitive behavioural therapy. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 35, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellett, S., Clarke, S., & Matthews, L. (2007). Delivering group psychoeducational CBT in primary care: comparing outcomes with individual CBT and individual psychodynamic-interpersonal therapy. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellett, S., Newman, D., Matthews, L., & Swift, A. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of large group format CBT via the application of practice-based evidence. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 32, 231–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, C., Page, T., & Conroy-Hiller, T. (2004). Comparing the effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy using individual or group therapy in the treatment of depression. JBI Reports, 2, 185–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, N. (2001). Group cognitive therapy: treatment of choice or sub-optimal option? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 29, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2009). Depression in adults: recognition and management (CG90). London: NICE.Google Scholar
NHS Education for Scotland (NES) & Scottish Government (2014). The Matrix (2015). A guide to delivering evidence-based psychological therapies in Scotland (2014). Edinburgh.Google Scholar
NHS PCMHT Operational Policy (November, 2014). Glasgow: NHS GG&C.Google Scholar
NHS Scotland (2010) The healthcare quality strategy for NHS Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2012). Mental Health Strategy for Scotland: 2012–2015. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2017). Mental Health Strategy for Scotland: 2017–2020. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Tikka, R., Jones, C., & Law, A. (2010). Is it acceptable to patients to have supported self-help interventions delivered through psycho-educational groups? A qualitative study on the reasons for dropout. Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, 5, 36–42Google Scholar
Wainman-Lefley, J. (2018). NHS GG&C unpublished audit: Investigating the implementation of routine outcome measures within group-based interventions in a primary care mental health setting.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.