MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727385075 · doi:10.1002/cpp.2101

Intensive Short‐Term Dynamic Psychotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder: A pilot effectiveness and process‐outcome study

2017· article· en· W2727385075 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Lilliengren, Robert Johansson, Joel M. Town, Steve Kisely, Allan Abbass

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyOutcome (game theory)AnxietyPsychotherapistTerm (time)Process (computing)Generalized anxiety disorderClinical psychologyPsychiatryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). We further aimed to examine if a key clinical process within the ISTDP framework, termed the level of mobilization of unprocessed complex emotions (MUCE), was related to outcome. The sample consisted of 215 adult patients (60.9% female) with GAD and comorbid conditions treated in a tertiary mental health outpatient setting. The patients were provided an average of 8.3 sessions of ISTDP delivered by 38 therapists. The level of MUCE in treatment was assessed from videotaped sessions by a rater blind to treatment outcome. Year-by-year healthcare costs were derived independently from government databases. Multilevel growth models indicated significant decreases in psychiatric symptoms and interpersonal problems during treatment. These gains were corroborated by reductions in healthcare costs that continued for 4 years post-treatment reaching normal population means. Further, we found that the in-treatment level of MUCE was associated with larger treatment effects, underlining the significance of emotional experiencing and processing in the treatment of GAD. We conclude that ISTDP appears to reduce symptoms and costs associated with GAD and that the ISTDP framework may be useful for understanding key therapeutic processes in this challenging clinical population. Controlled studies of ISTDP for GAD are 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.166
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology & PsychotherapySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207