Inpatient small group psychotherapy: A survey

Erickson, Richard C.

doi:10.1016/0272-7358(82)90008-3

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Optimal group size for group interventions is said to depend on the type and duration of therapy, as well as the target population. There is consensus that ideal group size is 7-8 members, with a range of 5-10 members [6,[30][31][32][33]. Groups with five or more members allow the formation of meaningful relationships [34] and cohesive group functioning [6].…”

Section: Group Interventions In Healthcarementioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges in the design, planning and implementation of trials evaluating group interventions

Biggs

Hind

Gossage-Worrall

et al. 2020

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Group interventions are interventions delivered to groups of people rather than to individuals and are used in healthcare for mental health recovery, behaviour change, peer support, self-management and/or health education. Evaluating group interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) presents trialists with a set of practical problems, which are not present in RCTs of one-to-one interventions and which may not be immediately obvious. Methods: Case-based approach summarising Sheffield trials unit's experience in the design and implementation of five group interventions. We reviewed participant recruitment and attrition, facilitator training and attrition, attendance at the group sessions, group size and fidelity aspects across five RCTs. Results: Median recruitment across the five trials was 3.2 (range 1.7-21.0) participants per site per month. Group intervention trials involve a delay in starting the intervention for some participants, until sufficient numbers are available to start a group. There was no evidence that the timing of consent, relative to randomisation, affected post-randomisation attrition which was a matter of concern for all trial teams. Group facilitator attrition was common in studies where facilitators were employed by the health system rather than the by the grant holder and led to the early closure of one trial; research sites responded by training 'back-up' and new facilitators. Trials specified that participants had to attend a median of 62.5% (range 16.7%-80%) of sessions, in order to receive a 'therapeutic dose'; a median of 76.7% (range 42.9%-97.8%) received a therapeutic dose. Across the five trials, 75.3% of all sessions went ahead without the pre-specified ideal group size. A variety of methods were used to assess the fidelity of group interventions at a group and individual level across the five trials. Conclusion: This is the first paper to provide an empirical basis for planning group intervention trials. Investigators should expect delays/difficulties in recruiting groups of the optimal size, plan for both facilitator and participant attrition, and consider how group attendance and group size affects treatment fidelity.

show abstract