Background:Empirical research demonstrates the short- to medium-term efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive behavioural group therapy (CBGT) for social anxiety disorder (SAD). Little is known about the durability of gains beyond 1 year following treatment in real-life clinical settings. Literature regarding the impact of aftercare programs as an adjunct to CBGT treatment on SAD is scarce.Aims:To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of CBGT for SAD in a community sample and to explore the relationship between long-term treatment outcomes and aftercare support group attendance.Method:A longitudinal cohort design evaluated changes in standardized psychological measures assessing aspects of SAD, anxiety and depression. Questionnaires were completed before the program (time 1, N = 457), after the program (time 2, n = 369) and at an average of 4.6 years follow-up (time 3, n = 138).Results:Large treatment effect sizes at post-intervention were maintained at long-term follow-up on measures of SAD, anxiety and depression. There was no statistically significant relationship between frequency of attendance at an aftercare support group and degree of improvement from post-treatment severity on any measure.Conclusions:CBGT is an effective intervention in the long-term in a routine clinical setting and should be considered a viable treatment option for SAD. Recommendations for future research, treatment implications and study limitations are considered.

Professional anxiety existed early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with challenging infection prevention and control support. The aims of this study were to compare epidemiological features of healthcare workers (HCWs) within primary and secondary care with their serological evidence of infection. A prospective observational cohort of 1,916 HCWs completed a questionnaire, and their sera were assayed for detectable antibody to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein in the first wave of the pandemic. Datasets were compared between the two sub-cohorts in primary and secondary care and between the combined seropositive and seronegative cohorts. Curiosity of antibody status was high. Detectable antibody was 7% in the primary care and 5% in the secondary care workers at a time of 1.7% in the general community. Inappropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) was more common in primary care, and detectable antibody was twice as prevalent in HCWs who felt they did not have appropriate PPE. Contact tracing was perceived to be inadequate although it was more commonly performed in the seropositive cohort suggesting appropriate prioritisation. Both temperature and symptom checking alerts and work exclusion were significantly more prevalent in the seropositive cohort. The seroprevalence data support increased risk for HCWs, the importance of appropriate PPE and the usefulness of the daily temperature and symptom checks, particularly in primary care.