Effectiveness of a Brief Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia and the Impact of Partner Involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A brief treatment for panic disorder with agoraphobia (PDA) supported by self-help materials may be an alternative choice to standard CBT: this type of program may also help to overcome some of the cost-benefit limitations of standard cognitive behavioural therapy. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of a brief cognitive behaviour therapy (7 weeks) for PDA, with and without partner involvement, along with a self-study manual. A total of 77 participants meeting DSM-IV criteria of PDA were assigned to one of three treatment conditions: 1) a 14-session standard CBT (n = 26); 2) a 7-session brief cognitive behaviour therapy along with a self-study manual (n = 26); and 3) a 7-session brief cognitive behaviour therapy involving a partner along with a self-study manual (n = 25). Results show a statistically and clinically significant improvement on all outcome measures in the three treatment conditions. Gains were maintained up to 6 months. Both brief CBT conditions were as effective as the standard cognitive behavioural treatment. These results suggest that a brief program, supported by self-help materials, that shortens the time during which the patient suffers from this problem may be a good option for the treatment of panic disorder.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".