Change in Defense Mechanisms and Coping Patterns During the Course of 2-Year–Long Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis for Recurrent Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Very little research has been conducted so far to study the potential mechanisms of change in long-term active psychological treatments of recurrent depression. The present pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to determine the feasibility of studying the change process occurring in patients during the course of 2-year-long dynamic psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, and cognitive therapy, as compared with clinical management. In total, eight outpatients presenting with recurrent depression, two patients per treatment arm, were included. All patients were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment conditions. Defense mechanisms and coping patterns were assessed using validated observer-rated methodology based on transcribed, semistructured follow-along independent dynamic interviews. The results indicated that, whereas some patients in the active treatments changed on the symptomatic levels, some others remained unchanged during the course of their 2-year-long treatment. However, with regard to potential mechanisms of change in these patients, changes in defense mechanisms and coping patterns were revealed to be important processes over time in successful therapies and, to a lesser extent, in less successful treatments. No change was found either on outcome or on the process measure for the control condition, that is, clinical management. These results are discussed along with previous data comparing change in defense mechanisms and coping during the course of treatments.
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 | 0.000 | 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".