Acceptability and Feasibility of an Intervention to Enhance Social Group Belonging: Evidence From Three Trials of Groups 4 Health.

Groups 4 Health (G4H) is a group psychotherapy program that targets social group disconnection. An emerging evidence base supports its efficacy in reducing loneliness, depression, and social anxiety. However, to date there has been no formal analysis of its acceptability to clients and therapists, nor an investigation of its feasibility for wider implementation. This input from end users is crucial to ensure the program's wider suitability and to contribute to its improvement. This study drew data from three clinical trials, including 266 G4H clients and 68 G4H therapists. From the Phase III trial only, additional data were available from 90 clients in a dose-controlled cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) comparison group, and focus groups/interviews with 6 therapists and 13 clients. Client satisfaction was high, with all average ratings >7/10, significantly exceeding the CBT comparison group. Therapist satisfaction with each module was >5/7. Retention was >80%. Homework completion was high, with <10% of clients saying that they had not attempted the homework. Therapists and clients both emphasized the benefits arising from G4H, and the contribution of the group context itself as a vehicle to achieve positive outcomes.

Perceived COVID-19 risk is attenuated by ingroup trust: evidence from three empirical studies.

BACKGROUND: The social identity model of risk taking proposes that people take more risks with ingroup members because they trust them more. While this can be beneficial in some circumstances, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic it has the potential to undermine an effective public health response if people underestimate the risk of contagion posed by ingroup members, or overestimate the risk of vaccines or treatments developed by outgroup members. METHODS: Three studies (two prospective surveys, one experiment) with community-based adults tested the potential for the social identity model of risk taking to explain risk perception and risk taking in the context of COVID-19. RESULTS: Study 1 was a two-wave study with a pre-COVID baseline, and found that people who identified more strongly as a member of their neighborhood pre-COVID tended to trust their neighbors more, and perceive interacting with them during COVID-19 lockdown to be less risky. Study 2 (N = 2033) replicated these findings in a two-wave nationally representative Australian sample. Study 3 (N = 216) was a pre-registered experiment which found that people indicated greater willingness to take a vaccine, and perceived it to be less risky, when it was developed by an ingroup compared to an outgroup source. We interpret this as evidence that the tendency to trust ingroup members more could be harnessed to enhance the COVID-19 response. CONCLUSIONS: Across all three studies, ingroup members were trusted more and were perceived to pose less health risk. These findings are discussed with a focus on how group processes can be more effectively incorporated into public health policy, both for the current pandemic and for future contagious disease threats.