Patient Interpersonal and Cognitive Changes and Their Relation to Outcome in Interpersonal Psychotherapy for Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite interpersonal psychotherapy's (IPT) efficacy for depression, little is known about its change-promoting ingredients. This exploratory study examined candidate change mechanisms by identifying whether patients' interpersonal and cognitive characteristics change during IPT and whether such changes relate to outcomes. METHOD: Patients were 95 depressed adults receiving manualized IPT. We used multilevel modeling to assess the relation between change in each interpersonal and cognitive domain and outcome. RESULTS: Across all interpersonal and cognitive variables measured, patients showed significant improvement. Unexpectedly, reduced romantic relationship adjustment was related to posttreatment depression reduction (β = 2.028, p = .008, self-rated; β = 1.474, p = .022, clinician-rated). For the other measured domains, change was not significantly associated with outcome (though changes in some interpersonal variables evidenced a trend-level relation to outcome). CONCLUSIONS: Possible reciprocal influences among IPT, depression, and romantic relationship functioning are discussed, as are implications for future research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".