Forecasting Success: Patients' Expectations for Improvement and Their Relations to Baseline, Process and Outcome Variables in Group Cognitive–Behavioural Therapy for Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: There is growing evidence for the important role of patients' outcome expectations to the process and outcome of psychotherapy, yet its relevance to group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression has not been examined. In an effort to fill this void, the present study investigated expectations for improvement among 80 psychiatric outpatients attending a group CBT program for depression. The study addressed the following four questions: (1) Which baseline patient characteristics might be associated with patients' expectations for improvement? (2) Does providing a rationale and outline for treatment affect patients' expectations? (3) Are patients' expectations related to the quality of therapeutic alliance? and (4) Are patients' expectations associated with the outcome of treatment? The main findings of the study are as follows: (a) baseline symptoms of depression, quality of life and current suicidal ideations were consistently associated with outcome expectancies; (b) outcome expectancies were unrelated to treatment completion status; (c) although expectancy ratings did not change significantly for the group as a whole, there was some variability in how individual patient's expectancy ratings changed; (d) baseline expectancies were related to early-treatment alliance quality, but not to mid-treatment alliance, whereas early-treatment expectancies were significantly associated with mid-treatment alliance; and (e) baseline expectations of favourable outcome had a negative association with improvement in anxiety symptoms, yet expectancy ratings from session 3 had a positive association with improvement in quality of life and interpersonal problems. Increases in expectancy ratings were significantly related to improvement in anxiety, quality of life and interpersonal problems. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: Patients who present in a particularly hopeless and demoralized state are likely to have low expectations for a positive outcome of treatment. Efforts should be made in the first few sessions of therapy to mobilize patients' hope and expectation of success, for increases in one's expectations may facilitate a favourable treatment outcome. An optimistic outlook on the probability of success in treatment may contribute to the development of a strong working relationship between the patient and the therapist.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".