The Comparative Effectiveness of a Group Therapy for Overcontrol (Group Radical Openness) When Delivered In-Person vs. Remotely: Findings from a Retrospective Naturalistic Service Evaluation.
Group Radical Openness (GRO) is a group therapy for the treatment of costly and harmful overcontrol. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the remote delivery of GRO, notwithstanding its highly interpersonal therapeutic focus. Based on positive service user feedback, the option to attend remotely was maintained after the pandemic. This service review evaluates this continued provision, through an assessment of the comparative effectiveness of GRO within in-person and videoconferencing (VC) formats.
A retrospective naturalistic evaluation of routine pre- and post- clinical outcome data was conducted at a not-for-profit mental health service in Ireland. The in-person and VC-GRO comparison groups arose organically in the context of responsiveness to service user preference.
The sample consisted of 101 GRO participants (72 in-person and 29 VC), aged between 18 and 68 years (M = 41.2 years, SD = 13.00). Based on main effect interpretations from ANOVAs, the overall effectiveness of GRO was supported for both primary outcomes: difficulties associated with overcontrol (F (1, 100) = 84.92; p < 0.01); and general psychological distress (F (1, 100) = 44.32; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the in-person and VC groups for any of GRO's primary or secondary outcomes. Concerns that more avoidant participants might opt for VC-GRO over in-person attendance were also not supported, as the groups presented similarly in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics at baseline.
These preliminary and naturalistic findings support the effective delivery of GRO both in-person and remotely. This should allay any concerns surrounding the potential unhelpful impact of delivering GRO remotely. These findings are applicable to similar VC therapy groups.
A retrospective naturalistic evaluation of routine pre- and post- clinical outcome data was conducted at a not-for-profit mental health service in Ireland. The in-person and VC-GRO comparison groups arose organically in the context of responsiveness to service user preference.
The sample consisted of 101 GRO participants (72 in-person and 29 VC), aged between 18 and 68 years (M = 41.2 years, SD = 13.00). Based on main effect interpretations from ANOVAs, the overall effectiveness of GRO was supported for both primary outcomes: difficulties associated with overcontrol (F (1, 100) = 84.92; p < 0.01); and general psychological distress (F (1, 100) = 44.32; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the in-person and VC groups for any of GRO's primary or secondary outcomes. Concerns that more avoidant participants might opt for VC-GRO over in-person attendance were also not supported, as the groups presented similarly in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics at baseline.
These preliminary and naturalistic findings support the effective delivery of GRO both in-person and remotely. This should allay any concerns surrounding the potential unhelpful impact of delivering GRO remotely. These findings are applicable to similar VC therapy groups.