The Efficacy of Short-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Depressive Disorders with Comorbid Personality Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of comorbid personality disorder (PD) is one of the factors that can make the treatment of depression unsuccessful. Short-term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP) has been shown efficacious in the treatment of personality and depressive disorders (DD). However, the efficacy of STPP for comorbid DD and PD has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, data from patients meeting criteria for both DD and PD participating from randomized controlled trials of STPP was collected, systematically reviewed, and meta-analyzed where possible. Eight studies were included, 6 with major depression and 2 with minor depressive disorders. Pre- to post- treatment effects sizes were large (d = 1.00-1.27), suggesting symptom improvement during STPP, and these gains were maintained in follow-ups averaging over 1.5 years. For major depression, no differences were found comparing STPP to other psychotherapies, and STPP was found superior to a wait-list condition in one study. STPP may have had an advantage over other therapy controls in treating minor depression as noted in ratings of general psychopathology. Patients with Cluster A/B and C PD were responsive to STPP, with the majority of all studied patients showing clinically significant change on self-report measures. Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that STPP warrants consideration as a first line treatment for combined personality disorder and depression. Future research directions are proposed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".