Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychotherapy and massage therapy (MT) are effective treatments for depression and anxiety. Little is certain about the mechanisms behind these effects in MT, but in psychotherapy they are attributed to a combination of common and specific factors, at the heart of which lies the therapeutic relationship. Research into the psychotherapeutic relationship in MT, therefore, may advance understanding of its impact on depression and anxiety. PURPOSE: This research seeks to elucidate the components of the psychotherapeutic relationship in MT to inform training, research, and practice. PARTICIPANTS & SETTING: Two participants-a therapist and a client-from Melbourne, Australia. RESEARCH DESIGN: A qualitative methodology was employed whereby one therapeutic relationship was observed over the course of three massage treatments. After each treatment, the participants commentated recordings of the sessions. The recordings were transcribed and analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and Conversation Analysis (CA). Themes and subthemes were extracted from the analysis. RESULTS: Four overarching themes emerged: Separateness, Pleasure, Merging, and Internalization. Separateness is associated with the subthemes of Boundaries, Performance of Roles, and Power. Pleasure is associated with the subthemes of Safety, Comfort and Communication. Merging is associated with the subthemes of Contact and Empathy. Internalization has no subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that a clearer conceptualization of the therapeutic relationship in MT may help massage therapists more purposefully treat depressed and anxious clients. A greater emphasis on self-awareness in the professional development of massage therapists may also foster this. Additionally, the role of pleasure in the therapeutic relationship in MT warrants closer examination.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".