Badger and Morris (1989) | 12 | 8 non-structured support group sessions | Purpose: support group intervention v no treatment control group. Results: no significant between group differences. Trends were reported towards improvement in the treatment group | Very small number of patients were studied. No systematic treatment protocol was delivered. This was a patient led methodology |
Molchany and Peterson (1994) | 11 | Not specified | Purpose: support group intervention v no treatment control group. Results: no significant between group differences. Qualitative analyses demonstrated improved ability to cope and increased satisfaction with life in group participants | Very small number of patients were studied. No known systematic treatment protocol was delivered. Duration of treatment is unknown but may not have been sufficient to detect differences |
Sneed et al (1997) | 34 | 2 inpatient individual sessions, 2 support group sessions, and 12 telephone contacts over a 16 week period. | Purpose: support group intervention v no treatment control group. Results: no significant between group differences at 4 month follow up. Results indicated that tension/anxiety reduced for both groups | Small number of patients were studied. Systematic treatment protocol was delivered but group format was patient led. Longer duration of treatment was a significant improvement in methodology but the content of the follow up phone contacts was not well specified |
Kohn et al (2000) | 49 | 9 sessions (pre-implant, pre-discharge, 7 routine follow up visits) | Purpose: compared individual cognitive–behavioural treatment to usual care. Results: individual treatment group reported less depression, less anxiety, less general distress, (p<0.05), despite receiving a higher level of shocks (p<0.07) | Sufficient sample size. Most comprehensive and well documented treatment protocol study available. Effects were robust enough to detect differences. Used an expensive and time intensive, individual therapy protocol |