Week 5 Discussion: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Comparing Group, Family, and Individual Settings
Cognitive-behavioral therapy or CBT is a systematic psychotherapeutic method to assist patients in learning how to detect and change harmful or distressing thought processes that negatively affect their behavior and emotions (Fenn & Byrne, 2013). CBT is a collaborative process between the therapist and the participants, working together to identify maladaptive behavioral patterns and trying coping skills to help manage stressful situations (Fenn & Byrne, 2013). CBT can be conducted one-on-one or in groups, with studies indicating both formats effective in treating conditions such as depression and anxiety (Sohn et al., 2018).
Individual CBT allows the therapist to be flexible and adapt a session to the individual’s needs as the therapist’s sole focus is one client. In addition, confidentiality is easier to maintain as the therapist only hears information divulged by the client. This can result in a stronger and more intimate therapeutic alliance with the client (Crits-Christoph et al., 2019).
In group CBT, the provider can reach a more significant number of patients. For group CBT to succeed, elements such as group cohesiveness and task-oriented are needed (Malhotra, 2021). Group CBT not only relies on the therapist to lead, but also uses the participants’ shared experiences to learn that others have faced similar situations and acquire skills that they can use when they face similar problems (Malhotra, 2021). Participants helping others can also improve their sense of self-worth (Malhotra, 2021).
Family CBT is an approach based on the idea that the ideas and behavior of a family member can affect the entire family simultaneously (Landa et al., 2015). The thoughts and behaviors can significantly contribute to the formation of dysfunction or impede change within the family. Members of the family learn techniques to create a supportive environment to navigate marital dissatisfaction, family conflict, and other issues that have resulted in family dysfunction and challenges (Landa et al., 2015).
Some challenges that a therapist may encounter when using CBT in a group setting deal with engagement and participation. The challenge of one participant monopolizing the group is an issue because it can decrease the level of engagement of the other participants and change the direction of the session away from the topic at hand (Wendt & Gone, 2018). Another challenge in a group setting is encouraging the participation of patients who may not be comfortable sharing in group settings. Quiet or withdrawn individuals may receive less attention in a group environment than in an individual setting (Wendt & Gone, 2018).
References
Crits-Christoph, P., Rieger, A., Gaines, A., & Gibbons, M. B. (2019). Trust and respect in the patient-clinician relationship: Preliminary development of a new scale. BMC Psychology, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0347-3
Fenn, K., & Byrne, M. (2013). The key principles of cognitive behavioural therapy. InnovAiT: Education and Inspiration for General Practice, 6(9), 579–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755738012471029
Landa, Y., Mueser, K. T., Wyka, K. E., Shreck, E., Jespersen, R., Jacobs, M. A., Griffin, K. W., van der Gaag, M., Reyna, V. F., Beck, A. T., Silbersweig, D. A., & Walkup, J. T. (2015). Development of a group and family-based cognitive behavioural therapy program for Youth at risk for psychosis. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 10(6), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12204
Malhotra, A. (2021, July 25). Group therapy. StatPearls [Internet]. Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549812/.
Sohn, B. K., Oh, Y. K., Choi, J.-S., Song, J., Lim, A., Lee, J. P., An, J. N., Choi, H.-J., Hwang, J. Y., Jung, H.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Lim, C. S. (2018). Effectiveness of group cognitive behavioral therapy with mindfulness in end-stage renal disease hemodialysis patients. Kidney Research and Clinical Practice, 37(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.23876/j.krcp.2018.37.1.77
Wendt, D. C., & Gone, J. P. (2018). Complexities with group therapy facilitation in substance use disorder specialty treatment settings. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 88, 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2018.02.002
Photo Credit: Getty Images
There are significant differences in the applications of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for families and individuals. The same is true
for CBT in group settings and CBT in family settings. In your role, it is essential to understand these differences to appropriately apply this therapeutic approach across multiple settings. For this Discussion, as you compare the use of CBT in individual, group, and family settings, consider challenges of using this approach with groups you may lead, as well as strategies for overcoming those challenges.
To prepare:
- Review the videos in this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights provided on CBT in various settings.
By Day 3
Post an explanation of how the use of CBT in groups compares to its use in family or individual settings. Explain at least two challenges PMHNPs might encounter when using CBT in one of these settings. Support your response with specific examples from this week’s media and at least three peer-reviewed, evidence-based sources. Explain why each of your supporting sources is considered scholarly and attach the PDFs of your sources.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6 of Week 1
Respond to at least two of your colleagues by recommending strategies to overcome the challenges your colleagues have identified. Support your recommendation with evidence-based literature and/or your own experiences with clients.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 5 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion
Name: NRNP_6645_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent
Point range: 90–100 |
Good
Point range: 80–89 |
Fair
Point range: 70–79 |
Poor
Point range: 0–69 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 current credible sources. |
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least 3 credible references. |
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only 1 or no credible references. |
| Main Posting:
Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Further adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main discussion by due date. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Posts main discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation. |
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main discussion by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main discussion by due date. |
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
|
| First Response: Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| First Response: Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth.
|
| Second Response: Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in Standard, Edited English. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| Second Response: Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!