Premium
A comparison of the efficacy and acceptability of group versus individual cognitive behaviour therapy in the treatment of panic disorder and agoraphobia in primary care
Author(s) -
Sharp D. M.,
Power K. G.,
Swanson V.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
clinical psychology and psychotherapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.315
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1099-0879
pISSN - 1063-3995
DOI - 10.1002/cpp.393
Subject(s) - agoraphobia , panic disorder , psychology , anxiety , waiting list , clinical psychology , cognitive therapy , panic , treatment and control groups , cognitive behavioral therapy , psychiatry , cognition , exposure therapy , randomized controlled trial , psychotherapist , statistical significance , medicine , transplantation
Abstract Panic disorder and agoraphobia is a prevalent clinical condition which places heavy demands on treatment resources in primary care. The efficient delivery of evidence‐based psychological treatment for this disorder is therefore important. Previous research has investigated both individual and group treatment formats for cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for panic disorder and agoraphobia. These two modalities of treatment delivery are, however, rarely compared within the same study format. Also little is known of patients' preferences regarding treatment delivery formats. The present study investigated the relative efficacy of a group treatment CBT and an individual treatment CBT in comparison with a waiting list control group in the treatment of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in primary care. Ninety‐seven patients suffering from DSM‐IV panic disorder with or without agoraphobia were randomly allocated to receive either group CBT, individual CBT, or waiting list control. All patients were seen by the same therapist and all received an identical treatment manual. Treatment response was measured by blind assessor, therapist and patient‐rated measures of anxiety, depression, and agoraphobic avoidance, and was analysed in terms of both traditional statistical significance and clinical significance of outcome. At treatment end‐point, in terms of traditional statistical significance, both the group and individual CBT were significantly superior to waiting list control but did not differ significantly from each other. When clinical significance of outcome at treatment end‐point was considered, individual CBT showed a significant advantage over both group CBT and waiting list control. At 3‐month follow‐up, however, the individual CBT treatment group showed significant superiority to the group CBT treatment on clinical significance of outcome on one outcome measure only. This was principally due to a reduction in the proportion of patients achieving criteria of clinically significant change in the individual CBT treatment group over the 3‐month follow‐up period. When given a free choice of group or individual CBT at the end of the waiting list period, the overwhelming majority (95%) of the waiting list patients chose individual CBT. The implications of these findings for future research and for wider clinical practice are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.