↓ Skip to main content

Group schema therapy versus group cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder with comorbid avoidant personality disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Group schema therapy versus group cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder with comorbid avoidant personality disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1605-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Astrid Baljé, Anja Greeven, Anne van Giezen, Kees Korrelboom, Arnoud Arntz, Philip Spinhoven

Abstract

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) with comorbid avoidant personality disorder (APD) has a high prevalence and is associated with serious psychosocial problems and high societal costs. When patients suffer from both SAD and APD, the Dutch multidisciplinary guidelines for personality disorders advise offering prolonged cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Recently there is increasing evidence for the effectiveness of schema therapy (ST) for personality disorders such as borderline personality disorder and cluster C personality disorders. Since ST addresses underlying personality characteristics and maladaptive coping strategies developed in childhood, this treatment might be particularly effective for patients with SAD and comorbid APD. To our knowledge, there are no studies comparing CBT with ST in this particular group of patients. This superiority trial aims at comparing the effectiveness of these treatments. As an additional goal, predictors and underlying mechanisms of change will be explored. The design of the study is a multicentre two-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which the treatment effect of group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) will be compared to that of group schema therapy (GST) in a semi-open group format. A total of 128 patients aged 18-65 years old will be enrolled. Patients will receive 30 sessions of GCBT or GST during a period of approximately 9 months. Primary outcome measures are the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale Self-Report (LSAS-SR) for social anxiety disorder and the newly developed Avoidant Personality Disorder Severity Index (AVPDSI) for avoidant personality disorder. Secondary outcome measures are the MINI section SAD, the SCID-II section APD, the Schema Mode Inventory (SMI-2), the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (IDS-SR), the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II). Data will be collected at the start, halfway and at the end of the treatment, followed by measurements at 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. The trial will increase our knowledge on the effectiveness and applicability of both treatment modalities for patients suffering from both diagnoses. Dutch Trial Register: NTR3921 . Registered on 25 March 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 18%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 7%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 70 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 94 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 9%
Unspecified 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 75 35%