Circumstances to integrate acceptance and commitment therapy with short-term psychodynamic psychotherapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How therapists integrate short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is not well understood. This study focused on the circumstances used to guide the integration of ACT and STPP as a therapeutic strategy from therapists’ perspectives and experiences. Thirteen participants from the United States, Australia, and Canada who integrate ACT and STPP as a therapeutic strategy were interviewed by video call or video conference. Grounded theory method was utilized to collect and analyze qualitative data generated from the interviews. Findings and conclusions: To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to use grounded theory methodology to describe the circumstances to integrate ACT and STPP. Seven response markers were identified to consider ACT and STPP integration with matched patient characteristics in the context of the patient’s current functioning and the therapeutic alliance. The theoretical framework used for this study was Gold and Stricker and Stricker and Gold’s three-tiered model of assimilative integration. The framework offered the possibility of relieving symptom distress and building new intra-psychic representations and effective interpersonal skills. The results indicated that while the seven response markers can serve as useful guidelines for implementation of STPP and ACT integration, the therapist’s intuition is and may always be a determining factor in the decision to integrate these two modalities. The combination of ACT and STPP provides an opportunity to improve methodologies, strategies, and treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".