Differential Effectiveness of Open Versus Closed Psychotherapy Groups: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the state of research on the effectiveness of open versus closed psychotherapy groups, from the beginning of empirical research on these groups to the present. METHODS: A literature search in seven databases and a supplementary search of the reference lists of 23 relevant articles were conducted between August 2022 and October 2023. Seventy-two articles were identified and screened for eligibility. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Outcomes are reported by study design (randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, descriptive). Information on each study's sample, setting, types of groups, process versus outcome measures, and outcome evaluation is provided. Findings suggest that open and closed psychotherapy groups have the same effect on reducing symptoms of mental disorders. Perception of group cohesion was phase dependent in closed group therapies, whereas cohesion was perceived as more constant in open group therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The question of how group therapy format may affect therapeutic outcomes and processes has been posed over the past 50 years, but trials are heterogeneous and robust conclusions cannot be made. Systematic research on the differential effectiveness of open versus closed psychotherapy groups is scarce. On the basis of empirical findings to date, no global superiority of either open or closed group therapy exists. Open and closed group therapies are equally effective, presumably because of different effect factors. An indication for open or closed group therapy must be made according to clinical requirements on a case-by-case basis.

A Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) statement on closed social media (Facebook®) groups for clinical education and consultation: issues of informed consent, patient privacy, and surgeon protection.

INTRODUCTION: Closed social media groups (CSMG), including closed Facebook® groups, are online communities providing physicians with platforms to collaborate privately via text, images, videos, and live streaming in real time and optimize patient care. CSMG platforms represent a novel paradigm in online learning and education, so it is imperative to ensure that the public and patients trust the physicians using these platforms. Informed consent is an essential aspect of establishing this trust. With the launch of several of its own CSMG, Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) sought to define its position on CSMG platforms and provide an informed consent template for educating and protecting patients, surgeons, and institutions. METHODS: A review of the literature (2012-2018) discussing the informed consent process for posting clinical scenarios, photography, and/or videography on social media was performed. Pertinent articles and exemplary legal counsel-approved CSMG policies and informed consent forms were reviewed by members of the SAGES Facebook® Task Force. RESULTS: Eleven articles and two institutional CSMG policies discussing key components of the informed consent process, including patient transparency and confidentiality, provider-patient partnerships, ethics, and education were included. Using this information and expert opinion, a SAGES-approved statement and informed consent template were formulated. CONCLUSIONS: SAGES endorses the professional use of medical and surgical CSMG platforms for education, patient care optimization, and dissemination of clinical information. Despite the growing use of social media as an integral tool for surgical practice and education, issues of informed consent still exist and remain the responsibility of the physician contributor. Responsible, ethical, and compliant use of CSMG platforms is essential. Surgeons and patients embracing CSMG for quality improvement and optimized outcomes should be legally protected. SAGES foresees the use of this type of platform continuing to grow.

Behavioural therapy for smoking cessation: the effectiveness of different intervention types for disadvantaged and affluent smokers.

BACKGROUND: Disadvantaged smokers are less likely to be successful when trying to stop smoking than more affluent smokers. In the UK, NHS Stop Smoking Services (SSS) provide a range of pharmacotherapy and behavioural support, delivered by advisors with a range of backgrounds. Whether the types of support provided and who provides it influence differences in quit rates amongst low SES smokers compared with high SES smokers has not previously been examined. METHODS: 202,084 records of smokers in England who attended a NHS Stop Smoking Service between July 2010 and June 2011 were acquired. Smokers were followed-up by services at four weeks post quit date. Multilevel logistic regression models of CO validated quits were employed. Disadvantage was explored through the National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) and by eligibility for free prescriptions, an indicator of low income amongst adults aged between 19 and 59 in England. RESULTS: Affluent smokers were more likely to quit than disadvantaged smokers (OR 1.38 (1.35 to 1.42) for clients who paid for prescriptions compared to those eligible for free prescriptions). 80% of service clients received one-to-one counselling but open group forms of behavioural therapy were more successful (main effect OR 1.26 (1.12 to 1.41)) except amongst some of the most disadvantaged clients (long-term unemployed and prisoners). Closed groups were little deployed and they were not significantly more successful than one-to-one behavioural therapy after controls. Who delivered treatment did make a difference for some clients, with all but the most affluent less likely to be successful if they had been treated by a nurse compared with other types of advisers, including smoking cessation specialists (main effect OR 0.73 (0.65 to 0.83)). CONCLUSION: This study provides further evidence that disadvantaged smokers find quitting more difficult even when they have attended a smoking cessation programme. The findings suggest that open groups should be promoted, although they may not be as effective as other forms of behavioural therapy for the long-term unemployed or prisoners. Further research is required to explore why most groups of smokers who attended services staffed by nurses were less likely to quit than those who received treatment from other types of advisors.