Special Section: Contemporary Challenges for Research in Group Analysis

Abstract

In this paper, I underline the challenges for group-analytic research by demonstrating the immense difference in the amount of research done in group psychotherapy in general as compared to group analysis. After presenting an overview of findings from empirical, quantitative outcome studies in group psychotherapy at large, I will discuss some trends in contemporary group psychotherapy research, and finally, I will give a rough sketch of group-analytic research. I will focus on quantitative research and I will see group analysis as a clinical enterprise - a theory, model, art and craft that has been developed and can be used to treat psychiatric disorders, and toameliorate psychological problems.

Effects of Group Psychotherapy on Young Adults’ Romantic and Career Functioning

“…The effectiveness of the current developmentally oriented group intervention recalls the documented effectiveness of group interventions in general (Blackmore et al, 2012; Lorentzen, 2006). In addition, the comparison of the group intervention with the waiting list further substantiated the effect of the current intervention.…”

“…The current group intervention with young adult clients extends previous reports in a number of aspects. Past reports on the effectiveness of group therapy did not necessarily focus on young adults, and included different age groups (Lorentzen, 2006; Tschuschke, Anbeh and Kiencke, 2007). In addition, previous studies focused on targeting specific medical or psychological problems such as anxiety (Clarkin et al, 2007; Rudd et al, 1996).…”

“…Effectiveness was demonstrated in comparison to a waiting list group. In addition, group psychotherapy was found to be as effective as individual psychotherapy or other psychological treatments (Lorentzen, 2006). Yet, to the best of our knowledge, the extent to which group psychotherapy therapy helps young adults deal with age specific developmental challenges has not been studied in the past.…”

Short-term focused group-analytic psychotherapy (SFGAP): An integrative approach to change based on research

“…The two original treatment manuals (Lorentzen, 2004) were later translated to English, thanks to support from Institute of Group Analysis, London and Group Analytic Society-International (Lorentzen, 2014). The support was partly prompted by the lack of quantitative research in GAP, which was reflected in reviews of the existing literature at that time (Lorentzen, 2006; Blackmore, Tantam, Parry et al, 2011). The lack of research evidence had weakened the position of GAP within the National Health Services in the UK, where cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), as in many other countries, predominated.…”

Measuring meaningful markers of change

“…Von Fraunhofer (2008) additionally argues that we need to look at recovery/therapeutic change indicators, such as service users becoming more mature and independent long-term. Considering the estimated cost-effectiveness of GAT (Schlapobersky, 2016) and its potential therapeutic benefits (Lorentzen, 2006; Horneland et al, 2011; Henton, 2012), the development of a stronger evidence base for GAT, and its subsequent inclusion into national practice guidelines, would be crucial in order to secure the approach’s long-term sustainability. This highlights the necessity of developing a suitable PROM that is acceptable to service users, therapists and commissioners.…”