Support Person (Co-Therapist) in the Therapy of Panic Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluates: a) the natural course and severity of panic disorder using psychometric testing, and b) the efficacy of using support person (co-therapist) in the treatment of panic disorder. Method: Twenty-six outpatients were assessed with the Burns Anxiety Inventory, Diagnostic Anxiety Questionnaire, Hillview Panic Inventory, and Beck Depression Inventory. The patients were divided into two groups: 13 patients have been treated without involvement of the support person (control group), and 17 patients have been treated with help from the support person. The patients were also taught to write the Daily Panic Record form and the support persons (co-therapists) were instructed about therapy procedures provided by the therapist. All involved patients were re-assessed with the same psychometric instruments after three and six months of the treatment. Results: The results on initial assessment were similar in both groups. As therapy progressed, both groups show a reduction in anxiety and depression after 3 months of treatment. However, it was evident that patients in the experimental group (with support person) had much better progress in last 3 months of the treatment than those in the control group. Conclusion: Accepting that the exposure is the most effective treatment of panic disorder, we hypothesised that the therapy with a help from the support therapy should be more effective. We found that 54% of the patients in experimental group were panic-free after 3-months, and 86% after 6-months treatment. However, those who did not have help from support person, only 21% were panic-free after 3-months treatment and 33% after 6-months treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".