Outcome of Psychoanalytic and Cognitive-Behavioural Long-Term Therapy with Chronically Depressed Patients: A Controlled Trial with Preferential and Randomized Allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: For chronic depression, the effectiveness of brief psychotherapy has been limited. This study is the first comparing the effectiveness of long-term cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and long-term psychoanalytic therapy (PAT) of chronically depressed patients and the effects of preferential or randomized allocation. METHODS: A total of 252 adults met the inclusion criteria (aged 21-60 years, major depression, dysthymia, double depression for at least 24 months, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms [QIDS] >9, Beck Depression Inventory II [BDI] >17, informed consent, not meeting exclusion criteria). Main outcome measures were depression self-rating (BDI) and rating (clinician-rated QIDS [QIDS-C]) by independent, treatment-blinded clinicians. Full remission rates (BDI ≤12, QIDS-C ≤5) were calculated. An independent center for data management and biostatistics analyzed the treatment effects and differences using linear mixed models (multilevel models and hierarchical models). RESULTS: The average BDI declined from 32.1 points by 12.1 points over the first year and 17.2 points over 3 years. BDI overall mean effect sizes increased from d = 1.17 after 1 year to d = 1.83 after 3 years. BDI remission rates increased from 34% after 1 year to 45% after 3 years. QIDS-C overall effect sizes increased from d = 1.56 to d = 2.08, and remission rates rose from 39% after 1 year to 61% after 3 years. We found no significant differences between PAT and CBT or between preferential and randomized allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Psychoanalytic as well as cognitive-behavioural long-term treatments lead to significant and sustained improvements of depressive symptoms of chronically depressed patients exceeding effect sizes of other international outcome studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".