Trial reportThe British journal of clinical psychology2025
An intervention to build social identities improves mental health and wellbeing in people with elevated social anxiety: Evidence from a single-arm clinical trial.
Trial report in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An intervention to build social identities improves mental health and wellbeing in people with elevated social anxiety: Evidence from a single-arm clinical trial.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCurrent best-practice treatments for social anxiety disorder do not directly address loneliness, despite its role in the maintenance of the condition. The current study targets this issue directly, using mixed methods to provide an initial test of the efficacy of an established loneliness intervention, Groups 4 Health (G4H), among 33 people with clinically elevated social anxiety symptoms.
designA single-arm design was used and outcomes were assessed at baseline, programme completion and 5-month follow-up (3 months after programme completion).
methodsLoneliness, social anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms and well-being were assessed at each time point. Semi-structured follow-up interviews were also conducted to explore the feasibility and acceptability of G4H in this population.
resultsResults from intention-to-treat analyses provide initial evidence of the programme's efficacy: participants' loneliness (d = -1.08), social anxiety symptoms (d = -.45), and depression symptoms (d = -.60) reduced significantly from baseline to 5-month follow-up while their well-being (d = 1.00) increased. Four themes emerged from reflexive thematic analysis: (1) the importance of challenging initial anxiety about attending group therapy, (2) the value of being vulnerable with fellow group members, (3) the role of G4H in increasing participants' social confidence, and (4) processes which both helped and hindered participants' ability to engage with their group.
conclusionsTogether, results suggest that G4H is a promising and innovative treatment option for people with social anxiety, and further controlled evaluation is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.