Group Analysis, Ahead of Print.
Group psychotherapy has been shown to be effective across a diverse range of participants and settings. However, few quantitative studies have examined outcomes of Group Analytic Psychotherapy (GAP) specifically, or compared this with alternative treatments. In the present study we compare outcomes of weekly group analytic psychotherapy (GAP) and individual psychodynamic psychotherapy (PPT) at a psychotherapy service within the UK’s National Health Service. The service collected Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) outcome measures between 2010 and 2020 as part of routine clinical practice, furnishing a large observational dataset (N=600 clients). We found that clients showed clinically significant improvement following either GAP (Cohen’s d=0.77) or PPT (d=0.68), and the rate of change during therapy exceeded that during a pre-treatment waiting period. There were no clinically significant differences in effectiveness between GAP and PPT, of either short-term (<1 year) or long-term (> 1 year) duration. These results support a conclusion that both GAP and PPT are effective in routine clinical practice. We consider the advantages and limitations of quantitative outcome measurement from a group analytic perspective and highlight the possible pitfalls of attempting to optimise therapy based on overly narrow criteria.