Responsive regulation of treatment duration in routine practice in United Kingdom primary care settings: Replication in a larger sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Replicating a previous study (M. Barkham et al., 2006), the authors examined rates of improvement in psychotherapy in United Kingdom primary care settings as a function of the number of sessions attended. Included in the study were adult clients who returned valid assessments at the beginning and the end of their treatment, had planned endings, began treatment above the clinical cutoff score, and were seen for 20 or fewer sessions (N = 9,703; 72.4% female; 87.7% Caucasian; average age = 40.9 years). Clients' average assessment scores improved substantially across treatment, with a pretreatment-posttreatment effect size of 1.96; 62.0% achieved reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI). Clients' mean pretreatment-posttreatment change was approximately constant regardless of treatment duration (in the range of 0 to 20 sessions); the RCSI rate decreased slightly with treatment duration, as fewer clients fell below the cutoff at longer durations. Results were interpreted as suggesting that therapists and clients tend to make appropriately responsive decisions about treatment duration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".