International Journal of Group Psychotherapy最新文献

Breast cancer is a life-altering stressor requiring patients to use a variety of psychosocial strategies to cope. Patients employing maladaptive cognitive coping strategies are likely to experience detrimental effects in their lives. Studies of group psychoeducation (GPE) interventions and its effects on positive and negative cognitive emotion regulation are scarce, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Nigeria. The present study investigated the effect of  eight weeks of a GPE intervention on cognitive emotion regulation (CER) among a single group of Nigerian women with breast cancer. Twenty-eight women with breast cancer were randomly allocated to one of two conditions: a treatment group (TG, N = 15) and a control condition (CC, N = 13). The TG received  eight weeks of GPE sessions, which included a 90-minute session per week, while the control condition (CC) included only a psychoeducational pamphlet. Assessments were carried out at baseline, posttreatment and 2-month follow-up with measures of CER Questionnaires. Data were analyzed using an independent sampled t test and chi square. The effect size was estimated with standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval. The results showed that TG participants had a significant improvement in adaptive CER (acceptance and positive reappraisal) in posttest and at 2-month follow-up compared to CC. Participants in TG also showed a significant decrease in maladaptive CER (self-blame, rumination and catastrophizing) relative to CC at posttest and 2-month follow-up. Group psychoeducation is an effective psychosocial treatment for better CER management of breast cancer. Group psychoeducation may be integrated as an adjunct therapy in the management of cancer patients, especially in Nigeria oncology, to improve the quality of life of patients and increase their survival rate.

This paper presents a description of a multigroup-based psychotherapy program for Turkish-speaking individuals provided by an innovative primary care mental health service in London. As of 2021, the project offers two types of therapy: a year-long horticultural group, which is a blend between talking therapy and gardening, and a 20-week psychotherapy group. Both were designed to engage the particularly complex Turkish-speaking patient population in the London Borough of Hackney. The project is grounded in group psychotherapy and borrows elements from different theoretical orientations and therapeutic modalities including community psychology, group analytic therapy, horticultural therapy, attachment theory, and dynamic therapies. Here, we present how the program was created and developed and the specifics of the groups, together with the main themes and dynamics that emerged in the therapeutic process. The program evaluation and outcomes are illustrated by several clinical case vignettes throughout the paper.

In light of two recent meta-analyses of the efficacy of group psychotherapy in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), this article critically reviews the randomized control trial (RCT) generated findings as well as two of its outgrowths-the production of a variety of clinical practice guidelines for treating PTSD and the dissemination efforts to transfer laboratory findings to clinical practice. All three of these activities have received considerable pushback from experienced clinicians and Boulder-identified scientist practitioners, creating an ongoing and entrenched gap or split between researcher and clinician. The article also reviews the various suggestions that have been offered to heal this gap and ending the hegemony of RCT outcome research as the only game in town for declaring what constitutes evidence. Specifically, the literature suggests two primary strategies for helping to realize the scientist-practitioner model and thus advancing the cause of psychotherapy, in general, and group psychotherapy, in particular: (a) leveling the playing field so that both researcher and practitioner have real authority and voices for shaping the field; and (b) shifting the research priority away from a purely outcome focus, asking only does it work, and moving to a more sophisticated, theoretically guided empirical study of process-outcome, examining the how, why, when, and for whom it works.