Implementing Panic-Focused Psychodynamic Psychotherapy into Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of manualized panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy (PFPP) in routine care in Germany. METHOD: German psychoanalysts were trained according to the PFPP manual. Fifty-four consecutive outpatients with panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia) were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to PFPP or cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) plus exposure therapy. Subjects (female 57.4%; mean age 36.2 years) had high rates of psychiatric (68.5%) and somatic (64.8%) comorbidity, and previous psychiatric treatments (57.4%). Assessments were performed pre- and posttreatment and at 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the Panic Disorder Severity Scale. RESULTS: Both treatments were highly effective. In patients randomized to PFPP, remission was achieved in 44.4% at termination and by 50% at follow-up (CBT 61.1% and 55.6%, respectively). No significant differences were found. Emotional awareness, a posited moderator of good outcome in psychotherapies, was significantly higher in the CBT group at baseline. It was found to be a strong moderator of treatment effectiveness in both treatments. After adjusting for initial Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) scores, effect sizes (ESs) for the primary outcome were Cohen d = 1.28, from pre- to posttreatment, and d = 1.03, from pretreatment to follow-up, for PFPP, and d = 1.81 and 1.28 for CBT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PFPP was implemented effectively into clinical practice by psychoanalysts in the community in a sample with severe mental illness with large ESs. Assessment of LEAS may facilitate the identification of patients suitable for short-term psychotherapy. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00000245; Universal Trial Number, U1111-1112-4245).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".