Reflections on supportive psychotherapy in the 21<sup>st</sup> century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supportive psychotherapy (SP) continues to be an indispensible psychotherapeutic approach for a range of mental health diagnoses, taught to and practiced by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. However, confusion abounds when attempting to delineate the boundaries of its intervention strategies, its theoretical foundation, processes of change, and distinct efficacy as compared with other approaches—and even its definition. The primary aims of this paper are three-fold: (1) to review the theoretical foundations of SP, (2) to advance a clearer identity for SP and (3) most importantly, to incorporate contemporary theoretical approaches to inform the practice of SP. The paper argues for a re-visioning of SP, in order that it may endure as a viable and distinct psychotherapeutic approach, in both modern-day practice and research contexts. Such re-visioning includes the incorporation of contemporary relational theory and findings from neuroscience.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".