Addressing Delusions in Women and Men with Delusional Disorder: Key Points for Clinical Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delusional disorders (DD) are difficult conditions for health professionals to treat successfully. They are also difficult for family members to bear. The aim of this narrative review is to select from the clinical literature the psychosocial interventions that appear to work best for these conditions and to see whether similar strategies can be modeled or taught to family members so that tensions at home are reduced. Because the content of men's and women's delusions sometimes differ, it has been suggested that optimal interventions for the two sexes may also differ. This review explores three areas: (a) specific treatments for men and women; (b) recommended psychological approaches by health professionals, especially in early encounters with patients with DD; and (c) recommended psychoeducation for families. Findings are that there is no evidence for differentiated psychosocial treatment for men and women with delusional disorder. What is recommended in the literature is to empathically elicit the details of the content of delusions, to address the accompanying emotions rather than the logic of the presented argument, to teach self-soothing techniques, and to monitor behavior with respect to its safety. These recommendations have only been validated in individual patients and families. More rigorous clinical trials need to be conducted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".