Taking the pulse of the group: The utilization of practice-based evidence in group psychotherapy.

Abstract

Group psychotherapy asks a good deal of clinicians, including attending to member selection, understanding group process, and monitoring client outcomes. The use of practice-based evidence (PBE) is a significant part of developing an evidence-based group psychotherapy practice. Client-generated data, obtained through the use of systematic measures, supplements clinical judgment by taking the "vital signs" of group members. This article globally addresses the supplementation of group psychotherapy with practice-based data and provides information for clinicians about the potential use of PBE in their psychotherapy groups.* '

A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Therapeutic Group Process Questionnaires

“…The measurement of group processes has important implications for both researchers and clinicians interested in monitoring and/or evaluating interactions between people in a therapeutic group setting (Delucia-Waack, 1997;Jensen et al, 2012). In terms of research, the Medical Research Council Framework (Campbell et al, 2007) guidance recommends that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions map mechanisms of change linked to desired outcomes.…”

Using theories from group psychotherapy to understand group process in multicultural focus groups: A pilot study

“…As Table 1 demonstrates, our guide was only modified slightly per focus group. Paying attention to group processes allows us to follow interactions that could be ignored if data analyses only examined responses from individual participants (Jensen et al, 2012). The strength of this study has been the use of a rigorous methodology that can be replicated by others.…”

“…This dual attention to the individual and the group is also crucial for focus groups, with the difference that focus groups are conducted for research and group psychotherapy has a therapeutic aim. Nonetheless, focus groups and group psychotherapy share features of: screening participants for appropriateness of inclusion, a moderator who facilitates interactions, a distinction between process and content, and a goal of maximizing participation among all members (Jensen et al, 2012; Puskar et al, 2012).…”

A case for modular design: Implications for implementing evidence-based interventions with culturally diverse youth.

“…In such cases, careful weekly standardized assessment of client progress (case history evidence) – which can be tracked using an electronic dashboard/MFS or simpler paper-and-pencil methods – is all the more essential. Multiple authors (e.g., Borckardt et al, 2008; Jensen et al, 2012), have advocated for using such a case study approach, which allows for ongoing clinical hypothesis testing, to expand and evaluate the reach of empirical findings in the practice setting. Borckardt and colleagues (2008) suggest using continual assessment within the context of an A–B design to examine change from baseline (A) to intervention (B).…”