Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcome Research
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
Habib Davanloo has spent his career developing and teaching methods to accelerate dynamic psychotherapy, including his technique of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP). Over the past 20 years, outcome studies using this treatment have been conducted and published. We performed a systematic review of the literature to obtain studies presenting ISTDP outcome data. We found 21 studies (10 controlled, and 11 uncontrolled) reporting the effects of ISTDP in patients with mood, anxiety, personality, and somatic disorders. Using the random-effects model, we performed meta-analyses including 13 of these studies and found pre- to post-treatment effect sizes (Cohen's d) ranging from 0.84 (interpersonal problems) to 1.51 (depression). Post-treatment to follow-up effect sizes suggested that these gains were maintained at follow-up. Based on post-treatment effect sizes, ISTDP was significantly more efficacious than control conditions (d = 1.18; general psychopathology measures). Study quality was highly variable, and there was significant heterogeneity in some analyses. Eight studies using various measures suggested ISTDP was cost-effective. Within limitations of study methodologies, this evidence supports the application of ISTDP across a broad range of populations. Further rigorous and targeted research into this method is warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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