The role of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy in improving attachment patterns, defense styles, and alexithymia in patients with depressive/anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (LTPP) emphasizes the centrality of intrapsychic and unconscious conflicts and their relation to development. Although there is evidence supporting the efficacy of LTPP in mental disorders, little research has been published on the efficacy of LTPP for depressive and anxiety disorders. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients with anxiety and depressive disorders demonstrate improvement in their attachment styles, defense styles, psychiatric symptoms, anxiety/depressive symptoms, and alexithymia with LTPP. METHODS: In this retrospective, descriptive study, the psychological outcomes of patients who were treated at the psychoanalytic clinic of Babol University of Medical Sciences were assessed. Fourteen patients diagnosed with depressive or anxiety disorder participated in the study of LTPP using the self-psychology approach. The Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Adult Attachment Scale, 40-item Defense Style Questionnaire, and the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale were administered at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up. Generalized estimating equations were used to analyze changes in psychological outcomes after each of the three assessments. RESULTS: The mean scores of depression and anxiety and secure attachment improved significantly after LTPP with self-psychology approach from baseline to post-treatment and follow-up. Also, the mean scores of neurotic and immature defenses, difficulty in identifying feelings, difficulty in describing feelings, externally oriented thinking, and total alexithymia scores decreased significantly from baseline to post-treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, insecure attachment styles, alexithymia, and neurotic/immature defense styles improved after the LTPP with self-psychology approach. Moreover, the improvements persisted at the 6-month follow-up.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".