Psychotherapists' ideals in the treatment of panic disorder: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Considerable empirical research supports psychotherapy as an effective intervention for panic disorder. Less evidence is available regarding clinicians' perspectives on the ideal therapy processes that should be prioritized when treating panic disorder. Aims The purpose of this study was to explore psychotherapists' process priorities and points of consensus and disagreement concerning the treatment of panic disorder. Material & Methods Thirty‐four psychotherapists reviewed a prototype description of a hypothetical client with panic disorder, and rank‐ordered ideal process features using a forced‐choice, 100‐item measure. The resulting composite therapy process was compared with expert‐rated CBT and psychodynamic process ratings. Results Several points of agreement and disagreement emerged regarding ideal therapy process for panic disorder. Overall, therapists' ratings were closely aligned with CBT process, though therapy relationship ideals were prominent. Discussion Research can illuminate therapy processes valued by clinicians for the treatment of particular disorders. Conclusion While therapists' ratings were overall associated with CBT ideals, common factors concerning the therapy relationship emerged as prominent and agreed‐upon processes in 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".