Ursula Melicherova, Tobias Schott, Malwina Brucker, Jürgen Hoyer, Volker Köllner
{"title":"开放组与封闭组形式的精神治疗住院抑郁症治疗。","authors":"Ursula Melicherova, Tobias Schott, Malwina Brucker, Jürgen Hoyer, Volker Köllner","doi":"10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Controversy exists about the comparative efficacy of different group formats, e. g., open versus closed. Most of the findings come from outpatient, closed group research. In practice, the open format is more widely used. This monocentric study aims to compare the efficacy as well as group cohesion during inpatient group psychotherapy for depression delivered in an open versus closed format.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>291 depressed inpatients (ageM= 55.7, SD = 11) of a psychosomatic-rehabilitation clinic were consecutively assigned to either open (n = 117) or closed (n = 174) cognitive-behavioral groups, further subdivided into groups based on length of the stay. Using multilevel models, we examined depression and group cohesion concerning changes in patients' random effects over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both group formats showed a reduction in symptomatology (d = 1.8). A significant group format x time interaction in favor of the closed format was found regarding group cohesion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While group cohesion improved in the closed format only, we did not find any significant difference between group formats regarding their efficacy. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials comparing both formats directly.</p>","PeriodicalId":51217,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie","volume":" ","pages":"6-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Originalbeiträge (Originals). Psychotherapeutic inpatient depression treatment in open versus closed group format.\",\"authors\":\"Ursula Melicherova, Tobias Schott, Malwina Brucker, Jürgen Hoyer, Volker Köllner\",\"doi\":\"10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Controversy exists about the comparative efficacy of different group formats, e. g., open versus closed. Most of the findings come from outpatient, closed group research. In practice, the open format is more widely used. This monocentric study aims to compare the efficacy as well as group cohesion during inpatient group psychotherapy for depression delivered in an open versus closed format.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>291 depressed inpatients (ageM= 55.7, SD = 11) of a psychosomatic-rehabilitation clinic were consecutively assigned to either open (n = 117) or closed (n = 174) cognitive-behavioral groups, further subdivided into groups based on length of the stay. Using multilevel models, we examined depression and group cohesion concerning changes in patients' random effects over time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both group formats showed a reduction in symptomatology (d = 1.8). A significant group format x time interaction in favor of the closed format was found regarding group cohesion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While group cohesion improved in the closed format only, we did not find any significant difference between group formats regarding their efficacy. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials comparing both formats directly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"6-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychosomatische Medizin Und Psychotherapie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2023.69.oa6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Originalbeiträge (Originals). Psychotherapeutic inpatient depression treatment in open versus closed group format.
Objective: Controversy exists about the comparative efficacy of different group formats, e. g., open versus closed. Most of the findings come from outpatient, closed group research. In practice, the open format is more widely used. This monocentric study aims to compare the efficacy as well as group cohesion during inpatient group psychotherapy for depression delivered in an open versus closed format.
Methods: 291 depressed inpatients (ageM= 55.7, SD = 11) of a psychosomatic-rehabilitation clinic were consecutively assigned to either open (n = 117) or closed (n = 174) cognitive-behavioral groups, further subdivided into groups based on length of the stay. Using multilevel models, we examined depression and group cohesion concerning changes in patients' random effects over time.
Results: Both group formats showed a reduction in symptomatology (d = 1.8). A significant group format x time interaction in favor of the closed format was found regarding group cohesion.
Conclusion: While group cohesion improved in the closed format only, we did not find any significant difference between group formats regarding their efficacy. Further research should focus on randomized controlled trials comparing both formats directly.
期刊介绍:
This journal provides a systematic overview of the entire field of psychosomatic medicine. It is also the official organ of the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy (DGPM). It serves as a forum for discussions of the interdisciplinary experiences in the field of psychosomatics, the goal being the furtherance of scientific insights into the interactions between mental and physical factors in the development of disease. It also provides a way to deepen one´s knowledge of psychoanalysis and to explore new therapeutic directions.