Comparing Two Brief Psychological Interventions to Usual Care in Panic Disorder Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Chest Pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Panic disorder (PD) is a common, often unrecognized condition among patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency departments (ED). Nevertheless, psychological treatment is rarely initiated. We are unaware of studies that evaluated the efficacy of brief cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. AIM: Evaluate the efficacy of two brief CBT interventions in PD patients presenting to the ED with chest pain. METHOD: Fifty-eight PD patients were assigned to either a 1-session CBT-based panic management intervention (PMI) (n = 24), a 7-session CBT intervention (n = 19), or a usual-care control condition (n = 15). A structured diagnostic interview and self-reported questionnaires were administered at pre-test, post-test, 3- and 6-month follow-ups. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed significant reduction in PD severity following both interventions compared to usual care control condition, but with neither showing superiority compared to the other. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-based interventions as brief as a single session initiated within 2 weeks after an ED visit for chest pain appear to be effective for PD. Given the high prevalence of PD in emergency care settings, greater efforts should be made to implement these interventions in the ED and/or primary care setting.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it