ArticleJournal of clinical psychology2026
The Comparative Effectiveness of a Group Therapy for Overcontrol (Group Radical Openness) When Delivered In-Person vs. Remotely: Findings from a Retrospective Naturalistic Service Evaluation.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology, 2026. 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.
- Psychometric Evaluation of the FFOCI-SF and Other Clinical Outcome Measures in a Group Therapy for Overcontrol (Group Radical Openness).International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesGroup Radical Openness (GRO) is a group therapy for the treatment of costly and harmful overcontrol. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the remote delivery of GRO, notwithstanding its highly interpersonal therapeutic focus. Based on positive service user feedback, the option to attend remotely was maintained after the pandemic. This service review evaluates this continued provision, through an assessment of the comparative effectiveness of GRO within in-person and videoconferencing (VC) formats.
methodsA retrospective naturalistic evaluation of routine pre- and post- clinical outcome data was conducted at a not-for-profit mental health service in Ireland. The in-person and VC-GRO comparison groups arose organically in the context of responsiveness to service user preference.
resultsThe sample consisted of 101 GRO participants (72 in-person and 29 VC), aged between 18 and 68 years (M = 41.2 years, SD = 13.00). Based on main effect interpretations from ANOVAs, the overall effectiveness of GRO was supported for both primary outcomes: difficulties associated with overcontrol (F (1, 100) = 84.92; p < 0.01); and general psychological distress (F (1, 100) = 44.32; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between the in-person and VC groups for any of GRO's primary or secondary outcomes. Concerns that more avoidant participants might opt for VC-GRO over in-person attendance were also not supported, as the groups presented similarly in terms of clinical and demographic characteristics at baseline.
conclusionThese preliminary and naturalistic findings support the effective delivery of GRO both in-person and remotely. This should allay any concerns surrounding the potential unhelpful impact of delivering GRO remotely. These findings are applicable to similar VC therapy groups.
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.