Back

A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study Protocol: What works for whom? Therapists and adolescents perspectives on indication criteria for schema therapy

Wilms, M. H. E.; Roelofs, J.; Alma, M. A.; Rijkeboer, M. M.

2026-05-19 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.05.14.26353229 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aim: Schema Therapy (ST) is an evidence-based treatment for complex mental health problems rooted in early Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Although both individual and group formats have shown effectiveness, little is known about which format works best for whom. This question is particularly relevant for adolescents given their unique developmental needs. Despite over a decade of clinical experience with ST in adolescents, current research offers limited guidance on how to tailor the format to individual needs - resulting in a persistent gap between research and practice. This study aims to develop practice-based indication criteria for individual versus group schema therapy by integrating therapists expertise with experiences from adolescents who underwent ST. Methods: This qualitative study employs a constructivist Grounded Theory approach. Data will be gathered through focus group discussions with schema therapists and individual interviews with adolescents. Therapists will be purposively selected based on experience with both therapy formats and with traumatized adolescents. Adolescents are eligible if they have experienced ACEs and have completed at least 20 sessions of ST. Results: The analysis will result in a theoretical model that integrates therapists clinical reasoning and adolescents preferences. Conclusions: This study integrates schema therapists expertise and adolescents lived experiences to develop actionable indication criteria for choosing between individual and group ST. By supporting informed clinical decision-making, the findings contribute to treatment personalization in adolescent ST and address key challenges such as suboptimal outcomes and treatment dropout. Moreover, the identified criteria provide a foundation for future quantitative validation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
21.8%
2
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.0%
3
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
4
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
5
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.2%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.8%
8
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
10
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
11
Journal of Psychiatric Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
12
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.0%
13
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
14
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.6%
17
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
18
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
20
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
21
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
Drug and Alcohol Dependence
37 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.7%
24
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%