How is Systemic and Constructionist Therapy Change Process Narrated in Retrospective Accounts of Therapy? A Systematic Meta‐synthesis Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the considerable potential of qualitative approaches for studying the systemic and constructionist therapy process due to shared theoretical and epistemological premises, to date there is lack of a comprehensive qualitative synthesis of how change process is experienced and conceptualized by clients and therapists. To address this evidence gap, we performed a systematic meta-synthesis review of 30 studies reporting clients' and therapists' retrospective narratives of change process across systemic and constructionist models and across a range of client configurations, including individuals, couples, families, and groups. The studies were identified following a systematic search in PsycINFO and MEDLINE resulting in 2,977 articles, which were screened against eligibility criteria. Thematic analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (1) navigating through differences, (2) toward nonpathologizing construction of problems, (3) navigating through power imbalances, and (4) toward new and trusting ways of relating. Findings illustrate the multifaceted aspects of systemic and constructionist change process, the importance for their reflexive appraisal, and the need for further research contributing to the understanding of the challenges inherent in the systemic and constructionist therapeutic context.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it