Article

The treatment of social phobia in general practice. Is exposure therapy feasible?

University of Bergen, Bergen, Hordaland, Norway
Family Practice (Impact Factor: 1.86). 05/2000; 17(2):114-8. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/17.2.114
Source: PubMed
ABSTRACT
Exposure therapy is an effective treatment for generalized social phobia. Most patients with social phobia are treated in primary care, but family doctors are not usually trained to perform exposure therapy. We have conducted a study in primary care of the effect of exposure therapy alone or in combination with sertraline on generalized social phobia.
The purpose of this article is to describe the training of GPs and the application of the treatment programme in general practice.
Forty-five GPs were trained for approximately 30 h in assessing patients with social phobia and conducting exposure therapy. The training programme included scoring of videotaped interviews of five patients on several social phobia scales, and a videotape demonstrating different steps of an exposure therapy was used as a model for role play in group training.
All of the GPs completed the training programme. The doctors expressed satisfaction with the programme and also found it useful in the treatment of patients with conditions other than social phobia. There was a significant difference in response between the treatment groups (P = 0.001), and the combination of exposure therapy and sertraline seemed to be particularly beneficial.

Full-text

Available from: Jan Egil Wold, Feb 25, 2016
114
Introduction
Social phobia is a rather new diagnostic entity; it was
included as a separate condition for the first time in
1980 in DSM-III. It is characterized by a persistent and
exaggerated fear of humiliation or embarrassment in
social situations, leading to high levels of distress and
possible avoidance of those situations. The fear may be
of speaking, meeting other people, eating or writing in
public, and relates to the fear of appearing nervous
or foolish, making mistakes, being criticized or being
laughed at. Often physical symptoms of anxiety such
as blushing, trembling, sweating and tachycardia are
triggered when the patient feels under evaluation or
scrutiny. Recent epidemiologic studies have shown a
life-time prevalence of social phobia in the general
population ranging from 2.4%
1
to 16%.
2
Social phobia is a chronic disorder with an early,
insidious onset in adolescence and a continuous, un-
remitting course, resulting in a substantial degree of
disability and suffering.
3
Both pharmacotherapy and
psychological treatment have been proven effective.
4–8
Exposure therapies are used commonly to treat social
phobia, and treatment programmes including education
and exposure instructions have been developed.
9,10
Usually these programmes are applied in mental health
care for individual or group treatment. There are no
earlier studies of psychological treatment for social
phobia by GPs. We have conducted a study of the effect
of exposure therapy, either alone or in combination with
medication, for patients with social phobia in primary
care.
Why in general practice?
In general practice, about one-third of patients have a
psychiatric disorder, mainly anxiety and depression.
11
Only half of the patients with psychiatric disorders are
identified by GPs mainly because primary care patients
usually present somatic symptoms and only rarely
mention their psychological problems.
12,13
The diagnosis
social phobia is almost never applied in general practice.
The patients are given more general diagnoses such as
anxiety or depressive conditions, sleeping problems, sub-
stance abuse or somatization such as myalgia, gastritis or
cardiac neurosis.
Family Practice Vol. 17, No. 2
© Oxford University Press 2000 Printed in Great Britain
The treatment of social phobia in general practice.
Is exposure therapy feasible?
Tone Tangen Haug, Kerstin Hellstrøm, Svein Blomhoff,
Mats Humble, Hans-Petter Madsbu and Jan Egil Wold
Haug TT, Hellstrøm K, Blomhoff S, Humble M, Madsbu H-P and Wold JE. The treatment of social
phobia in general practice. Is exposure therapy feasible?
Family Practice
2000; 17: 114–118.
Background. Exposure therapy is an effective treatment for generalized social phobia. Most
patients with social phobia are treated in primary care, but family doctors are not usually trained
to perform exposure therapy. We have conducted a study in primary care of the effect of exposure
therapy alone or in combination with sertraline on generalized social phobia.
Objectives. The purpose of this article is to describe the training of GPs and the application of
the treatment programme in general practice.
Method. Forty-five GPs were trained for ~30 h in assessing patients with social phobia and
conducting exposure therapy. The training programme included scoring of videotaped inter-
views of five patients on several social phobia scales, and a videotape demonstrating different
steps of an exposure therapy was used as a model for role play in group training.
Results. All of the GPs completed the training programme. The doctors expressed satisfaction
with the programme and also found it useful in the treatment of patients with conditions other
than social phobia. There was a significant difference in response between the treatment groups
(
P
= 0.001), and the combination of exposure therapy and sertraline seemed to be particularly
beneficial.
Keywords. Exposure, general practice, social phobia.
Received 21 June 1999; Revised 15 October 1999; Accepted
26 October 1999.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Bergen, 5021
Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
by guest on October 20, 2015http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Page 1
Exposure therapy in general practice
115
Nearly all patients with anxiety and depressive con-
ditions are treated by family doctors, whereas only a few
are seen by psychiatrists.
14,15
Given this distribution of
care, it is important to ensure that GPs are well trained
in psychiatric assessment, diagnosis and treatment. Valid
and reliable diagnostic procedures and efficacious treat-
ment strategies for anxiety disorders have been developed
in psychiatric settings over the past two decades.
Application of these diagnostic and treatment methods
has not been well studied in primary care settings, although
there is some indication that both presentation of illness
and effective treatment interventions may differ from
those in specialized psychiatric settings. There is, there-
fore, a need to facilitate dissemination of efficacious
methodologies to primary care settings.
Recognition programmes of psychological problems
in primary care have been developed where the
physicians are taught skills enhancing their ability to
recognize and respond to verbal and non-verbal cues,
making empathic comments and using patient-directed,
open-ended interviewing strategies.
16
There are also
several studies of brief psychological treatment for
primary care patients. Barkham
17
has described a three-
session cognitive–behavioural intervention, and White
and Keenan
18
have applied a group didactic ‘course’
on anxiety management strategies. Brief problem-
solving therapy has been proven to be as effective as
benzodiazepine treatment of patients with anxiety,
19
and Swinson et al.
20
showed that panic disorder
patients provided with psychoeducation and exposure
instructions had a significantly better outcome than
those not so informed.
Why exposure therapy?
There are now well proven efficacious treatments for
social phobia using medication and psychotherapy alone
and in combination.
4,7,8
These treatments have not been
well studied in primary care settings, and thus their
effectiveness remains to be documented. The psycho-
therapeutic approach in this study had to meet four basic
criteria: (i) it must be possible to conduct the therapy
within the frame of a GP consultation; (ii) the therapy
had to be standardized in such a way that a manual was
available for the instruction of the therapists; (iii) only a
limited number of therapeutic interventions were to be
applied; and (iv) there must be some evidence of efficacy
for the approach for patients with social phobia.
Exposure therapy has been proven effective in the treat-
ment of social phobia,
21,22
and brief treatment pro-
grammes with structured manuals have been developed.
In exposure therapy, mainly behavioral techniques such
as scheduling activities, graded task assignment, distrac-
tion and relaxation are applied, while cognitive strat-
egies for managing the problematic situation are only
used to a limited degree. On the basis of these consider-
ations, brief exposure therapy based on a self-treatment
manual developed by Isaac Marks
9
was chosen as the
psychotherapeutic approach. We wanted to test if it was
possible to describe a standard psychological treatment
for social phobia which could be applied in a primary
care setting and if it was feasible to train GPs to conduct
this therapy at an adequate competence level within a
relatively short time.
The purpose of this article is to describe the training of
the GPs in the treatment programme, and its application
in general practice.
Methods
Design of the outcome study
Three hundred and eighty-seven patients with general-
ized social phobia (mean age 40 years, female/male 234/
153) were included in the study. A total of 238 patients
were recruited from general practice and 149 from
advertising in newspapers. Requirements for inclusion
were generalized social phobia (DSM-IV) of at least
moderate severity (score ù34 on the Clinical Global
Impression Scale, CGI-S), lasting for at least 1 year.
Exclusion criteria were other axis-I diagnoses, treat-
ment for social phobia within the last 6 months, suicide
risk, alcohol or substance abuse and expected bad
compliance.
Assessments
Assessments of anamnestic data, somatic symptoms
and psychological factors were made by GPs and by
self-rating. Forty-three GPs and two psychiatrists
participated in the study. The ratings by the physicians
were tested for reliability before the study. The
assessments were made in a screening interview and in
a baseline interview after 1 week. Before the baseline
interview, the patients performed self-ratings on several
questionnaires. The following instruments were
applied: Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview
(MINI-R)
22
assessed DSM-IV psychiatric diagnoses,
CGI-S,
23
Social Phobia Scale (SPS)
24
and Marks Fear
Questionnaire
25
measured the level of generalized
social phobia.
All patients also identified 1–3 ‘target complaints’
which they assumed to be important and wanted to work
on in therapy, if they were selected for the therapy group.
The targets covered a range of social situations where
the patients feared a negative evaluation and had a
substantial degree of avoidance such as attending lunch
breaks, speaking up at meetings, going to parties, etc.
Each of the target complaints was scored on a scale from
1 to 4 where a higher score indicated a higher degree of
the problem. At the end of treatment, the patients made
an evaluation where they assessed the efficacy of the
therapy.
Anamnestic data were also registered and the patients
had a general physical examination. All patients signed
an informed consent to take part in the study.
by guest on October 20, 2015http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Page 2
Family Practice—an international journal
116
Treatment
After the baseline interview, the patients were assigned
randomly to exposure therapy or general medical care.
26
In the general medical care group, the interaction with
the patients was limited to discussion of clinical history,
explanation of the disease and general support, such as
encouragement, acceptance, ventilation and abreaction.
The exposure therapy focused on the specific ‘target
complaints’ identified by the patients at the assessment
interview. The patients also defined their own goals of
treatment. A booklet containing general information
about social phobia and its treatment, describing the
principles of exposure therapy including graded task
assignment with coping strategies such as distraction,
breathing exercises and rational self-talk, was dis-
tributed. The booklet also contained a self-registration
task of anxiety symptoms and coping strategies usually
applied by the patients themselves and forms for
registration of daily homework assignments.
The therapy included eight sessions, each lasting 15–
20 min. The first four sessions were conducted weekly,
and the last four sessions every other week. The time
course of the exposure therapy was 12 weeks. The aim
of the exposure therapy was to let the patients expose
themselves gradually to situations they usually feared
and avoided and thus learn new coping strategies. They
were told to stay as long as they could in the phobic
situations, ideally until the anxiety decreased.
All patients did homework between sessions where
they continued to expose themselves to defined anxiety-
provoking situations. During homework, the patients made
a written report of the training to bring with them to the
next session for discussion. The task of the physician was
to help the patients to identify goals of therapy and new
coping strategies, collaborate with the patients in planning
realistic exposure tasks and to offer guidance and support.
In the first therapy session, the patients were given
general information about social phobia and exposure
therapy. They were given the self-treatment booklet and
the first homework assignment was to read the booklet.
In the second session, the practical goals for treatment
were identified and the diary was introduced. In the next
sessions, the patients and physicians reviewed the home-
work done by the patient, discussed coping strategies
and new homework was assigned. In the last session, the
focus was on relapse prevention The coping strategies
the patient had learned during therapy were repeated
and the patients were encouraged to continue to expose
themselves to feared situations.
All patients additionally were randomized to medical
treatment with sertraline (50–150 mg daily) and match-
ing placebo according to a 2 × 2 design of the study. The
patients were medically treated for 24 weeks.
Follow-up
Assessments were made at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks.
Social phobia, social avoidance and ‘target complaints’
were assessed applying the same scales as at baseline.
Outcome variables were changes in degree of social
phobia rated by CGI-L, severity subscale and improve-
ment subscale, SPS and Marks Fear Questionnaire. In
addition, the effect of treatment was assessed by changes
in scores on ‘target complaints’. Response was defined as
a reduction of at least 50% on SPS compared with base-
line, a CGI-L global improvement rating of 1–2 (markedly
or moderately improved) and CGI-L overall severity in
the range 1–3 (no–mild mental illness) at week 24. Non-
response was defined as ,25% reduction in SPS com-
pared with baseline or CGI-L global improvement rated
at least 4 (no change). Partial response was defined as all
other responses.
The training programme
The goal of the training programme was to teach the GPs
to carry out reliable scorings effectively on the different
assessment forms and to attain a certain degree of
mastery of the treatment approach. The standardization
of training should ensure relatively uniform as well as
adequate administration of the treatment condition
across research sites.
The training programme included lectures, videotapes
and group supervision. The doctors were trained in
DSM-IV criteria and MINI-R interviewing to identify
social phobia and co-morbid disorders. They were also
trained in scoring of the CGI-S scale. Consensus ratings
between five trained psychiatrists/psychologists and one
GP on five videotaped patient interviews were defined
as the ‘golden standard’ of severity rating. After the
training programme, all doctors had to rate the CGI-S
scale on 12 videotaped patient interviews to assess inter-
rater reliability. An inter-rater reliability of at least
0.7 compared with the ‘golden standard’ was required to
be accepted as an investigator. Thirty-nine doctors
were accepted as investigators during this procedure;
three withdrew during the training period. The remain-
ing investigators were given further individual training
and then rated another four videotapes. During this
procedure, six additional doctors were accepted and a
total of 45 GPs were included as investigators in the
study.
To illustrate the different steps of the exposure
therapy, an instruction video showing five of the eight
sessions (first to fourth session and the last session)
of therapy for a patient with social phobia was shown.
The video was shown during the training sessions and
each GP had a copy of the video for their own studies. In
addition, the GPs were given some written material
about social phobia and exposure therapy. The GPs were
trained in groups of 10 for a total of 30 h during three
weekend sessions. The Norwegian GPs were trained by
the psychiatrists in the steering committee (SB, TTH and
JEW) and the Swedish GPs were trained by a clinical
psychologist (KH) and a psychiatrist (MH). During
sessions, the doctors carried out role playing of different
by guest on October 20, 2015http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Page 3
Exposure therapy in general practice
117
tasks in exposure therapy such as focusing the problems,
planning homework, discussing coping mechanisms and
giving support to the patients. The groups had super-
vision by the training psychiatrists and psychologist
throughout the study.
Results
Evaluation of the training programme
The GPs were all experienced family doctors with an
average of 16 (1–30) years of experience in this position.
Mean age was 48.8 years. Their main occupation was
in clinical work, seeing ~90 (17–164) patients with all
kinds of problems every week. Three GPs had worked
in psychiatric settings previously and had taken short
courses in psychotherapy/behaviour therapy.
The GPs themselves expressed satisfaction with the
training programme. They pointed out the importance of
learning a structured treatment of psychological problems,
focusing on coping strategies of defined targets. They
found the duration of exposure therapy applicable in the
GP setting, adjusted to the limited time of a consultation.
They also found that the techniques applied could be
useful in the treatment of psychiatric patients with con-
ditions other than generalized social phobia.
The results of the outcome study revealed that ex-
posure therapy alone, the combination of exposure
therapy and medication, and medication all were
significantly superior to placebo combined with general
medical care.
The target complaints identified by the patients at
baseline are described in Table 1. The most frequent
targets were attending meetings, going to parties and
speaking to audiences. A total of 534 of the targets were
connected to performance situations such as public
speaking, drinking or eating in front of others or entering
a room where there are people already present, while
313 of the targets were connected to interactional
situations such as speaking to strangers, going to social
gatherings or interaction with the opposite sex,
27
in-
dicating that the patients had generalized social phobia
covering a wide range of difficult social situations.
There was a significant reduction in score on target
complaints from baseline to week 12 and week 24
between groups (P = 0.016 and P = 0.0005, respectively)
and the largest reduction was in the group with the
combined treatment. The percentage of patients scoring
3 and 4 (moderate and severe problem) on intensity of
target 1 over time is shown in Figure 1. Exposure therapy
alone and in combination with medication was sig-
nificantly superior to general medical care at week 12
(P = 0.001). At week 24, all active treatment groups were
significantly superior to placebo (P = 0.001). Similar
findings emerged for targets 2 and 3.
The patients themselves rated the active treatments to
be more effective than placebo (P = 0.005), and there was
a high correlation between the doctors’ and the patients’
evaluations of the effect of treatment (kappa 0.83).
More detailed results of the study will be described
elsewhere.
Discussion
In this study, there was a significant improvement in
response from pre- to post-test in all four treatment
groups. Exposure therapy combined with medication
and medication alone were significantly superior to the
combination of general medical care and pill–placebo,
while exposure therapy alone approached statistical
significance. The patients had generalized social phobia
covering a large range of social situations and there was
a significantly larger reduction in scores on target com-
plaints from baseline to week 24 for all treatment groups
compared with placebo. Brief exposure therapy admin-
istered by GPs, alone or in combination with sertraline,
TABLE 1 Target complaints for patients with social phobia (n = 362);
each patient had up to three target complaints
Targets n
1. Attend meetings 171
2. Visit family, friends 147
3. Speak to an audience 124
4. Go to shops, banks, etc. 117
5. Do something while being watched 66
6. Speak to authorities 49
7. Lunch breaks 47
8. Travel by bus or train 46
9. Eat in restaurants 45
10. Schools, studies 35
FIGURE 1 Percentage of patients scoring 3 and 4 (moderate
and severe) on intensity of target 1, over time
by guest on October 20, 2015http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Page 4
Family Practice—an international journal
118
seemed to be an effective treatment modality. There are
no other studies of psychological treatment of social
phobia in general practice. Earlier studies have been
conducted in mental health care settings by experienced
psychiatrists or psychologists. In a study by Mattick
et al.,
28
exposure therapy, cognitive restructuring, a com-
bination of these and a waiting list control group were
compared. The combination and cognitive restructuring
groups improved significantly on all variables, whereas
the exposure therapy group showed changes on phobic
avoidance. Heimberg et al.
29
compared cognitive–
behavioural group treatment with credible placebo
control. In this study, both treatment groups improved,
but the cognitive–behavioural group patients were rated
as more improved than controls with less anxiety and
significantly fewer negative self-statements. Gelernter
et al.
7
compared a cognitive behavioural group treatment
programme with pharmacotherapy with phenelzine,
alprazolam and pill–placebo plus directions for self-
directed exposure to feared stimuli and reported a sub-
stantial improvement in all treatment groups. In another
study by Heimberg,
8
cognitive–behavioural group therapy,
educational supportive group therapy, phenelzine and
pill–placebo were compared. Cognitive therapy and
phenelzine led to superior response rates and a greater
change on dimensional measures than did either control
condition. Based on the results from these studies, it can
be concluded that GPs, after a limited training programme,
are able to reach a certain competence level of exposure
therapy to conduct treatment programmes which produce
results as good as treatments conducted in mental health
care settings.
The GPs expressed satisfaction with the training pro-
gramme and found the techniques they were taught use-
ful in treatment of patients with psychiatric conditions
other than generalized social phobia. The patients found
the treatment helpful and this was reinforced by the low
drop-out rate. In conclusion, we can make the statement
that it is possible to provide a standard short-term train-
ing programme for GPs to use exposure therapy effect-
ively. The treatment is feasible to apply in daily practice
and well accepted by both patients and family doctors.
References
1
Schneier FR, Johnson J, Hornig CD, Liebowitz MR, Weissman MM.
Social phobia: comorbidity and morbidity in an epidemiologic
sample. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49: 282–288.
2
Wacker HR, Mullejeans R, Klein KH. Identification of cases of
anxiety disorders and affective disorders in the community
according to ICD-10 and DSM-IIR by using the Composite
International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Int J Methods
Psychiatr Res 1992; 2: 91–100.
3
Bisserbe JC, Weiller E, Boyer P. Social phobia in primary care: level
of recognition and drug use. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1996; 11
(Suppl 3): 25–28.
4
Liebowitz MR. Pharmacotherapy of social phobia. J Clin Psychiatry
1993; 54 (Suppl): 31–35.
5
Versiani M, Nardi AE, Mundim FD et al. Pharmacotherapy for
social phobia. Br J Psychiatry 1992; 161: 353–356.
6
Stein M, Liebowitz MR, Lydiard B, Pitts CD. Paroxetine treatment
of generalized social phobia (social anxiety disorder). J Am
Med Assoc 1998; 280: 708–713.
7
Gelernter CS, Uhde TW, Cimbolic P et al. Cognitive–behavioral
and pharmacological treatments of social phobia. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1991; 48: 938–945.
8
Heimberg R, Liebowitz MD, Hope D, Schneier FR. Cognitive
behavioral group therapy vs phenelzine therapy for social
phobia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55: 1133–1141.
9
Marks IM, Matthews AM. Brief standard self-rating for phobic
patients. Behav Res Ther 1979; 17: 263–267.
10
Heimberg RG, Barlow DH. Psychosocial treatments of social
phobia. Psychosomatics 1988; 29: 27–37.
11
Goldberg D, Huxley P. Common Mental Disorders—A Biosocial
Model. London: Routledge, 1992.
12
Ormel J, van den Brinck W, Koeter MWJ et al. Recognition,
management and outcome of psychological disorders in
primary care: a naturalistic follow-up study. Psychol Med 1990;
20: 909–923.
13
Fifer SK, Mathias SD, Patrick DL, Manzonson PD, Lubeck DP,
Buesching DP. Untreated anxiety among adult primary care
patients in a health maintenance organization. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1994; 51: 740–750.
14
Weiler E, Bisserbe JC, Boyer P, Leoine JP, Lecrubier Y. Social
phobia in general health care: an urecognised, untreated,
disabling disorder. Br J Psychiatry 1996; 168: 169–174.
15
Den Boer JA. Social phobia: epidemiology, recognition and
treatment. Br Med J 1997; 315: 796–800.
16
Gask L. Training general practitioners to detect and manage
emotional disorders. Int Rev Psychiatry 1992; 4: 293–300.
17
Barkham M. Brief prescriptive therapy in two-plus-one sessions:
initial cases from the clinic. Behav Psychother 1989; 17: 161–175.
18
White J, Keenan M. Stress control: a pilot study of large-group
therapy for generalized anxiety disorders. Behav Psychother
1990; 18: 143–146.
19
Mynor-Wallis LM. Brief problem solving in depression. Int J
Psychiatry 1996; 26: 242–262.
20
Swinson RP, Soulios C, Cox BJ, Kuch K. Brief treatment of
emergency room patients with panic attacks. Am J Psychiatry
1992; 149: 944–946.
21
Chambless DL, Gillis MM. Cognitive therapy of anxiety disorders.
J Consult Clin Psychol 1993; 61: 248–260.
22
Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y. Mini International Neuropsychiatric
Interview, Clinician Rated (Version 4.3). European Psychiatry
1997; 12: 232–241.
23
Liebowitz, MR, Gorman JM, Fyer AJ et al. Social phobia; review of
a neglected anxiety disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985; 42:
729–736.
24
Mattick RP, Peters L. Treatment of severe social phobia: effects of
guided exposure with and without cognitive restructuring.
J Consult Clin Psychiatry 1988; 56: 251–260.
25
Cox BJ, Swinson RP, Shaw BF. Value of the fear questionnaire in
the differentiating of agoraphobia and social phobia. Br J
Psychiatry 1991; 159: 842–845.
26
Fawcett J, Scheftner W, Clark D. Clinical predictors of suicide in
patients with major affective disorders: a controlled prospective
study. Am J Psychiatry 1987; 144: 35–40
27
Hazen AL, Murray SB. Clinical phenomenology and comorbidity.
In Murray SB (ed.). Social Phobia Clinical and Research Per-
spectives. Washington: American Psychiatric Press, 1995; 3–41.
28
Mattick RP, Peters L, Clarke JC. Exposure and cognitive restructur-
ing for social phobia: a controlled study. Behav Ther 1989; 20:
3–23.
29
Heimberg RG. Cognitive and behavioral treatments for social
phobia. J Clin Psychiatry 1991; 52 (Suppl): 21–30.
by guest on October 20, 2015http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from
Page 5
    • "While a theory-and evidenceguided protocol was used (i.e., cited as being based on an efficacious manual), it was unclear whether the protocol had been previously evaluated in an RCT. A third limitation is that many effectiveness studies contain efficacy trial qualities, such as excluding individuals with comorbidities or recruiting via self-referral or newspaper advertisements (e.g., Haug et al., 2000; Marom et al., 2009). In addition to these limitations recent research has demonstrated that combining theory-driven components with more traditional CBT strategies (referred to as enhanced-CBGT) led to somewhat stronger effects than use of a more traditionally-based CBGT only (Rapee et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Cognitive Behavioural Group Therapy (CBGT) for social phobia has been shown to be efficacious within research units and effective within a variety of real world clinical settings. However, most effectiveness studies of CBGT for social phobia have (a) used protocols without demonstrated efficacy, (b) not included direct comparison groups, and/or (c) contained features of efficacy trials. This study addressed these limitations by using a benchmarking strategy to compare outcomes from the same CBGT protocol used in both a research unit and a community clinic. Research (N = 71) and community (N = 94) patients completed the same 12-session protocol, which resulted in significant reductions in social anxiety and life interference at post-treatment. Compared to research unit patients, community patients had more severe symptoms and life interference at pre-treatment, and were more likely to be male, use medication, have comorbid disorders, and have lower educational attainment. Importantly, degree of improvement on social anxiety symptoms and life interference did not differ across the treatment settings for either completer or intention-to-treat analyses. There was some evidence that being younger, single, and having a depression diagnosis were associated with dropout. Pre-treatment symptoms and number of diagnoses predicted post-treatment symptoms. Consistent with previous uncontrolled trials, it is concluded that CBGT is effective within community mental health clinics.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2012 · Behaviour Research and Therapy
  • Source
    • "MM+I-CBT does not include the following components that are part of the full CBT protocol: (1) Cognitive Training (CT) except for bossing back metaphors, and externalizing techniques, such as using a "nickname" for OCD; (2) the fear thermometer as an aid to creating and re-evaluating the stimulus hierarchy; (3) detailed hierarchies addressing different aspects of OCD; (4) imaginal exposure instructions; (5) therapist-assisted EX/RP in the office; (6) dyadic parent sessions except as noted; (7) detailed instructions regarding pitfalls in CBT and methods for moving stalled treatment forward. Exclusion of these components, while not detracting from the core components of CBT, was necessitated by both the time and the expertise required for their implementation [49]. CBT AsTable 6 shows, the CBT protocol to be administered by the study psychologist in the context of MM+CBT consists of 14 visits over 12 weeks involving: (1) psychoeducation, (2), CT, (3) mapping OCD, and (4) EX/RP. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This paper presents the rationale, design, and methods of the Pediatric Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Treatment Study II (POTS II), which investigates two different cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) augmentation approaches in children and adolescents who have experienced a partial response to pharmacotherapy with a serotonin reuptake inhibitor for OCD. The two CBT approaches test a "single doctor" versus "dual doctor" model of service delivery. A specific goal was to develop and test an easily disseminated protocol whereby child psychiatrists would provide instructions in core CBT procedures recommended for pediatric OCD (e.g., hierarchy development, in vivo exposure homework) during routine medical management of OCD (I-CBT). The conventional "dual doctor" CBT protocol consists of 14 visits over 12 weeks involving: (1) psychoeducation, (2), cognitive training, (3) mapping OCD, and (4) exposure with response prevention (EX/RP). I-CBT is a 7-session version of CBT that does not include imaginal exposure or therapist-assisted EX/RP. In this study, we compared 12 weeks of medication management (MM) provided by a study psychiatrist (MM only) with two types of CBT augmentation: (1) the dual doctor model (MM+CBT); and (2) the single doctor model (MM+I-CBT). The design balanced elements of an efficacy study (e.g., random assignment, independent ratings) with effectiveness research aims (e.g., differences in specific SRI medications, dosages, treatment providers). The study is wrapping up recruitment of 140 youth ages 7–17 with a primary diagnosis of OCD. Independent evaluators (IEs) rated participants at weeks 0,4,8, and 12 during acute treatment and at 3,6, and 12 month follow-up visits. NCT00074815
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2009 · Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
    • "Blomhoff et al. (2001) examined the efficacy of sertraline, exposure therapy and combined treatment in generalized social phobia. General practitioners who had received approximately 30 hours of training in assessment and exposure therapy for social phobia provided the treatment (Haug et al. 2000). Markedly more sertraline-than non-sertraline-treated patients responded but no marked difference was observed between exposure-and non-exposuretreated patients (Blomhoff et al. 2001). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Social phobia is a chronic disorder that results in substantial impairment. We conducted a qualitative review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for social phobia. Articles were identified through searches of electronic databases and manual searches of reference lists. They were classified by psychological interventions evaluated. Data regarding treatment, participants and results were then extracted and tabulated. We identified which psychological interventions are empirically supported, using the scheme proposed by Chambless & Hollon (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1998, 66, 7-18). Thirty studies evaluating the efficacy of social skills training (SST), exposure therapy and/or cognitive treatments were identified. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), involving cognitive restructuring and exposure to feared and avoided social situations or behavioral experiments, was found to be an efficacious and specific treatment for social phobia. Exposure therapy was found to be an efficacious treatment since most of the evidence of its efficacy was from comparisons with no treatment. There were mixed findings regarding the relative efficacy of CBT and in vivo exposure. Some studies reported that the interventions were equivalent, while others found that patients treated with CBT had a better outcome. There was little evidence to support the use of SST. CBT is the psychological intervention of choice for social phobia. The findings of this review are compared to those of other major reviews and limitations are discussed.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2008 · Psychological Medicine
Show more