Tag Archives: mental health

Why a service built on one-to-one work should think about making room for the group

Most services start with one-to-one work. It is familiar, straightforward to structure, easy to control and relatively easy to evidence. There are good reasons for that. But when one-to-one becomes the default, we can start to think about other formats mainly in terms of how well they can reproduce what happens in the one-to-one room.

That can make groupwork look like a way of delivering the same intervention to several people at once, perhaps more efficiently, perhaps more cheaply.

But groups aren’t simply a more economical way of doing individual work. They’re a different resource entirely.

When people work alongside one another, something becomes possible that isn’t available in a one-to-one conversation: the group itself can contribute to the process of change.

Something happens when people hear someone else describe an experience that sounds familiar. They realise they aren’t the only person carrying it. They may notice possibilities they hadn’t considered. They can see their own progress more clearly when they have a chance to put it into words in front of other people, rather than simply telling a practitioner who is listening and taking notes.

And ideas offered by a peer can land differently from the same idea offered by a professional. There is something about hearing, “That happened to me too and this is what I did,” that a practitioner cannot reproduce simply by being skilful.

These aren’t minor additions to one-to-one work. They are resources that simply aren’t available in the one-to-one room.

So a predominantly 1:1 service that adds groupwork isn’t diluting its offer. It is expanding what the service can make possible.

Now take that further: make the groupwork Solution Focused.

There is a problem, though. Groupwork doesn’t automatically make use of the group.

Without specific groupwork training, a session can easily become one-to-one conversation with an audience: the facilitator works through people one at a time while everyone else waits for their turn.

Nothing is inherently wrong with that. But it wastes much of what the group has to offer.

Solution Focused groupwork treats the group itself as part of the intervention.

The facilitator’s task is not to be the source of every useful question, idea or insight. It is to create the conditions in which the group can become a resource for its members.

That means deliberately making use of what is unique about being with other people: witnessing, recognition, peer-generated ideas, different perspectives, encouragement, and the accountability that comes from saying something out loud in front of others.

This isn’t simply a stylistic preference. The emerging evidence for group-delivered Solution Focused Brief Therapy is particularly interesting. A 2024 meta-analysis of 72 studies found that group therapy produced a larger effect (g = 1.64) than individual therapy (g = 0.48).

A separate 2025 meta-analysis examining SFBT research conducted in Iran, covering 34 studies, also found a large and statistically significant effect for group-based Solution Focused Brief Therapy (d = 1.04, p < .001). The authors note that this adds evidence for the effectiveness of group-based SFBT across different populations and presenting problems.

So if a service is already committed to Solution Focused practice, the question isn’t simply whether some of that work could be delivered in groups. It is worth asking what becomes possible when the group itself is deliberately treated as a resource.

That does ask something different of the facilitator.

Holding a Solution Focused group means resisting the pull to comment, teach, rescue or fill every silence. The facilitator has to trust the process enough not to become the centre of it. The skill is less about having something useful to say to everyone and more about creating the conditions in which participants can be useful to one another.

It also changes how the group is designed.

If the group itself is part of the intervention, then the structure of the session matters. The design needs to create opportunities for participants to hear one another, respond to one another, notice successes and differences, share ideas, and build on what others have said.

This means thinking carefully about the movement between whole-group conversation, smaller groups, pairs, individual reflection and other forms of participation. Different structures can serve different purposes: sometimes a participant needs space to think privately; sometimes a smaller conversation creates the safety needed to speak; and sometimes the value lies precisely in bringing an idea back to the whole group and allowing others to respond.

The important thing is not to default to one format, but to design the movement between formats deliberately. If participants spend most of the session having essentially separate conversations with the facilitator or with one other person, the group is not being fully used as a resource.

Good Solution Focused groupwork therefore isn’t simply about what questions the facilitator asks. It is also about how the room is structured so that participants (in person or online) can become resources for one another.

This is why I think services considering groupwork sometimes start with the wrong question.

It can be tempting to ask:

“Why would we offer groups when some people will always prefer one-to-one work?”

And of course, some people will. One-to-one work is an important part of a responsive service, and there will always be circumstances in which it is the right format.

But perhaps the more useful question is:

“What could groupwork make possible that our current ways of working cannot?”

That shifts the conversation away from whether groups should compete with individual work, and towards what each format can uniquely contribute.

The point isn’t to replace one-to-one work with groups. It is to give practitioners another way of working and creating change, one that makes use of the relationships, perspectives and resources that become available when people are working alongside one another.

Want to develop this in practice?

I’m currently running training in Solution Focused Groupwork at BRIEF, for practitioners who want to move beyond delivering one-to-one conversations in a group setting and learn how to use the group itself as a resource.

The training looks at the principles, stance and practical design of Solution Focused groupwork, including how to facilitate participation, generate peer-to-peer resources, and enable conversations so that the group is doing more than simply taking turns with the facilitator.

Find out more about the Solution Focused Groupwork training

References

Vermeulen-Oskam, E., Franklin, C., van ’t Hof, L. P. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van Vugt, E. S., Assink, M., Veltman, E. J., Froerer, A. S., Staaks, J. P. C., & Zhang, A. (2024). The current evidence of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis of psychosocial outcomes and moderating factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 114, 102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102512.

Froerer, A. S., Bolghan-Abadi, M., Chen, M., & Zhang, A. (2025). Meta-analysis of solution-focused brief therapy research conducted in Iran: Does outcome type, intervention modality, or delivery format make a difference? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(1), e12759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12759.

Diverse group discussing colorful “Our Journey Together” workshop board
A group collaborates around a colourful “Our Journey Together” group agreement during a community group work.

What changes when we move from a Solution Focused conversation between two people to a Solution Focused conversation between many?

A question that often arises for practitioners moving into groupwork is: if I am already trained in Solution Focused Brief Therapy, shouldn’t facilitating a Solution Focused group simply be a matter of applying the same skills with more people in the room?

The answer is both yes and no.

The principles remain the same: curiosity, attention to strengths and resources, preferred futures, what is already working, and small signs of progress. But the practice of groupwork introduces something fundamentally different. A Solution Focused group is not an individual conversation multiplied by the number of participants. It has its own architecture, its own possibilities, and its own challenges.

A 2024 meta-analysis* — one of the most comprehensive reviews of SFBT outcomes to date — examined 72 studies and 489 effect sizes and found an overall large effect of SFBT on psychosocial outcomes (g = 1.17). One particularly striking finding was that group therapy was associated with a larger effect size (g = 1.64) than individual therapy (g = 0.48). While moderator findings require thoughtful interpretation and do not by themselves establish causation, they raise an important question: what is it about SF groupwork that may create additional opportunities for change? This finding invites us to consider SF groupwork not simply as individual intervention delivered to more people, but as a distinct practice with its own mechanisms, dynamics and possibilities.

Students collaborating in a library with laptops and notebooks

So what makes Solution Focused groupwork different?

The group itself becomes the resource

In individual SF work, the practitioner helps one person identify their own resources, strengths, hopes and possibilities. In groupwork, something additional becomes available: participants become resources for one another.

A participant’s description of a preferred future may unlock possibilities for someone else. A person noticing their own progress may help another recognise progress they had overlooked. A useful question from one group member can become a resource for the whole group.

This is one of the unique opportunities of SF groups: the conversation is not only between facilitator and participant. The group itself becomes part of the solution-building process.

Without specific groupwork skills, however, there is a risk that groups become a series of one-to-one conversations conducted in front of an audience — missing the very thing that makes groups powerful.

Facilitation is not the same as conversation

SF one-to-one work develops our ability to hold a conversation: to listen carefully, ask useful questions that follow people’s answers, notice resources and help people construct details of their preferred futures.

Group facilitation requires an additional layer of skill: holding a space where multiple conversations can develop simultaneously.

This means knowing when to open a question to the whole group rather than directing it to one person; how to use one person’s contribution as a stepping stone for others; how to create connection without forcing participation; and how to maintain an SF stance while responding to the complexity and unpredictability of a group.

These are facilitation skills — and, like any skill, they need to be learned and practised.

Holding multiple preferred futures at once

In individual work, we track one person’s hopes, resources and progress. In groups, the facilitator is holding multiple preferred futures, multiple journeys and multiple paces.

Someone may be exploring what they want more of in their life, while another is already noticing significant changes. Someone may need more time to reflect, while another is ready to contribute immediately.

The challenge is to weave these different threads together while maintaining the SF principle that people are experts of their own lives.

This requires a different kind of attention: not just listening to what one person is saying, but listening for signs, strengths, connections and opportunities across the whole group.

The power of witnessing

One of the most distinctive features of SF groups is the witness effect.

People experience transformation not only by talking about their own hopes and progress, but by hearing others do the same. Witnessing someone else describe their preferred future, notice their resources or take a small step forward can create possibilities that were not available through individual reflection alone.

The facilitator’s role is not simply to encourage this process, but to understand how to create the conditions where it can happen.

Why train specifically in SF groupwork?

General SF training gives practitioners a strong foundation: how to ask better questions, listen differently, and support conversations that lead to useful change.

But moving from individual work to groupwork requires another layer of practice. It requires understanding the architecture of SF groups: how to design them, how to harness participants as resources for one another, how to facilitate collective conversations and how to remain Solution Focused while holding a room rather than a single conversation.

Solution Focused Groupwork training at BRIEF with Biba Georgieva, 7th & 8th October 2026

This course explores the design, process and practical facilitation skills needed to create and run Solution Focused groups.

It is designed for practitioners who either already have some familiarity with Solution Focused practice and want to develop their ability to facilitate groups in a way that fully utilises the resources, knowledge and creativity of participants or for experienced group facilitators who are interested in incorporating Solution Focused practice to their groupwork.

More information about the course and booking

*Full reference: Vermeulen-Oskam, E., Franklin, C., Van’t Hof, L.P.M., Stams, G.J.J.M., van Vugt, E.S., Assink, M., Veltman, E.J., Froerer, A.S., Staaks, J.P.C., & Zhang, A. (2024). The current evidence of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis of psychosocial outcomes and moderating factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 114, 102512.