P-1133 - Combining group psychodynamic psychotherapy with pharmacotherapy to treat target symptoms of iranian psychiatric outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Group psychodynamic psychotherapy (GPP) has shown some promising evidences to ameliorate the target symptoms of psychiatric patients. Objectives To examine the efficacy of adding GPP to pharmacotherapy treatment of Mixed anxiety-depressive disorder outpatients. Aims To investigate into the symptom relief effects of GPP in a developing setting. Method 21 psychiatric outpatients who entered long-term group psychodynamic psychotherapy plus pharmacotherapy protocol (Combined therapy) and 22 psychiatric outpatients who entered pharmacotherapy alone protocol of a psychotherapy clinic in the capital (Tehran), were matched against each other and analyzed on an intent to treat basis. HAM-D-24 Q, and HAM-A were used to rate the symptoms at baseline and after 6 months of each therapy (Dropouts reported < 5%). The percentile reduction in symptom scores and the response rates for each group were compared. Age, sex and baseline depressive and anxiety scores were also examined for their confounding effect on the response rate of patients. Results Compared with pharmacotherapy alone, Combined therapy caused more reduction in both depressive (53% vs. 44%) and anxiety (54% vs. 45%) symptoms and also a greater response rate (62% vs. 38%) among participants. Although not significant, the asymmetric distribution of 95% confidence interval rates of the difference (PROP test,R) indicated a higher proportional response rate for combined therapy. No confounding effect was found for proposed variables. Conclusion The results for combining GPP with pharmacotherapy to improve the symptomatic outcome of Iranian psychiatric outpatients are in line with the developed settings studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".