Symptom- and personality disorder changes in intensive short-term dynamic residential treatment for treatment-resistant anxiety and depressive disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study investigated the effectiveness of an 8-week intensive residential treatment programme based on principles from intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy for patients with known treatment-resistant anxiety- and/or depressive disorders (mainly with comorbid personality disorders). METHODS: Patients (N=95) with prior repeated treatment failure were included. Changes in self-reported target complaints, symptom severity, and overall interpersonal problems have been presented for these patients in two previous articles. We now expand upon the existing knowledge by presenting novel data from a number of important observer-based and self-reported outcome domains (diagnostic changes on Axis I and II, changes in overall personality dysfunction, disorder complexity, medication use, health care utilisation, and occupational activity). RESULTS: There were pervasive and significant improvements on all measures during treatment, which were maintained or further improved during follow-up. Fourteen months after the end of treatment, 46.26% of patients had recovered in terms of Axis I pathology, 63.79% had recovered in terms of Axis II pathology, 71.18% had returned to work, and there was a 28.62% reduction in regular use of psychotropic medications. Health care utilisation was reduced by 65.55%, and there were large improvements in disorder complexity and levels of personality dysfunction. CONCLUSION: The treatment programme was highly effective for patients with common and complex treatment-resistant mental disorders. Results are encouraging for the relatively large number of patients who tend not to benefit from standard formats of treatment for debilitating psychological problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".