Psychosocial Interventions for Bipolar Disorder and Coping Style Modification: Similar Clinical Outcomes, Similar Mechanisms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate changes in the use of coping styles in response to early symptoms of mania in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), compared with psychoeducation, for bipolar disorder. METHOD: Data were drawn from a randomized controlled trial comparing CBT and psychoeducation. A subsample of 119 participants completed the Coping Inventory for the Prodromes of Mania and symptom assessments before treatment and 72 weeks later. RESULTS: Both CBT and psychoeducation were associated with similar improvements in symptom burden. Both treatments also produced equivalent improvements in stimulation reduction and problem-directed coping styles, but no statistically significant change on the endorsement of help-seeking behaviours. A treatment interaction showed that a reduction in denial and blame was present only in the CBT treatment condition. CONCLUSIONS: CBT and psychoeducation have similar impacts on coping styles for the prodromes of mania. The exception to this is denial and blame, which is positively impacted only by CBT but which does not translate into improved outcome. Given the similar change in coping styles and mood burden, teaching patients about how to cope in adaptive ways with the symptoms of mania may be a shared mechanism of change for CBT and psychoeducation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00188838.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".