Interpersonal Psychotherapy: A Scoping Review and Historical Perspective (1974–2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) is an affect- and relationally focused, time-limited treatment supported by research spanning >4 decades. IPT focuses on stressful interpersonal experiences of loss, life changes, disputes, and social isolation. It emphasizes the role of relationships in recovery. This scoping review describes, within a historical perspective, IPT's evolution as an evidence-supported treatment of psychiatric disorders. METHODS: English-language publications (n = 1119) identified via EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases (1974-2017), augmented with manual reference searches, were coded for clinical focus, population demographics, format, setting, publication type, and research type. Quantitative and qualitative analyses identified IPT publications' characteristics and trends over four epochs of psychotherapy research. RESULTS: IPT literature primarily focused on depression (n = 772 articles; 69%), eating disorders (n = 135; 12%), anxiety disorders (n = 68; 6%), and bipolar disorder (n = 44; 4%), with rising publication rates and numbers of well-conducted randomized, controlled trials over time, justifying inclusion in consensus treatment guidelines. Research trends shifted from efficacy trials to effectiveness studies and population-based dissemination initiatives. Process research examined correlates of improvement and efficacy moderators. Innovations included global initiatives, prevention trials, and digital, web-based training and treatment. CONCLUSION: Sparked by clinical innovations and scientific advances, IPT has evolved as an effective treatment of psychiatric disorders across the lifespan for diverse patients, including underserved clinical populations. Future research to elucidate mechanisms of change, improve access, and adapt to changing frameworks of psychopathology and treatment planning is needed. IPT addresses the universal centrality of relationships to mental health, which is as relevant today as it was over 40 years ago.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".