MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221001769 · doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.788155

Therapeutic Alliance and Rapport Modulate Responses to Psilocybin Assisted Therapy for Depression

2022· article· en· W4221001769 on OpenAlexaff
Roberta Murphy, Hannes Kettner, Rick Zeifman, Bruna Giribaldi, Laura Kärtner, Jonny Martell, Tim Read, Ashleigh Murphy-Beiner, Michelle Baker-Jones, David Nutt, David Erritzøe, Rosalind Watts, Robin Carhart‐Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pharmacology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research CentreKing's College LondonImperial College LondonAcademy of Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRoyal College of Psychiatrists
KeywordsPsilocybinEscitalopramAlliancePsychologyClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPlaceboDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialMedicineAntidepressantPsychiatryInternal medicineHallucinogenAnxietyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Across psychotherapeutic frameworks, the strength of the therapeutic alliance has been found to correlate with treatment outcomes; however, its role has never been formally assessed in a trial of psychedelic-assisted therapy. We aimed to investigate the relationships between therapeutic alliance and rapport, the quality of the acute psychedelic experience and treatment outcomes. Methods:This 2-arm double-blind randomized controlled trial compared escitalopram with psychedelic-assisted therapy for moderate-severe depressive disorder (N= 59). This analysis focused on the psilocybin condition (n= 30), who received two oral doses of 25 mg psilocybin, 3-weeks apart, with psychological preparation, in-session support, and integration therapy. A new psychedelic therapy model, called “Accept-Connect-Embody” (ACE), was developed in this trial. The primary outcome was depression severity 6 weeks post treatment (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, QIDS-SR-16). Path analyses tested the hypothesis that therapeutic alliance (Scale To Assess the Therapeutic Relationship Patient Version, STAR-P) would predict depression outcomes via its influence on the acute psychedelic experience, specifically emotional-breakthrough (EBI) and mystical-type experiences (MEQ). The same analysis was performed on the escitalopram arm to test specificity. Results:The strength of therapeutic alliance predicted pre-session rapport, greater emotional-breakthrough and mystical-type experience (maximum EBI and MEQ scores across the two psilocybin sessions) and final QIDS scores (β= −0.22,R2= 0.42 for EBIMax;β= −0.19,R2= 0.32 for MEQMax). Exploratory path models revealed that final depression outcomes were more strongly affected by emotional breakthrough during the first, and mystical experience during the second session. Emotional breakthrough, but not mystical experience, during the first session had a positive effect on therapeutic alliance ahead of the second session (β= 0.79,p< 0.0001). Therapeutic alliance ahead of the second session had a direct impact on final depression scores, not mediated by the acute experience, with a weaker alliance ahead of the second psilocybin session predicting higher absolute depression scores at endpoint (β= −0.49,p< 0.001) Discussion:Future research could consider therapist training and characteristics; specific participant factors, e.g., attachment style or interpersonal trauma, which may underlie the quality of the therapeutic relationship, the psychedelic experience and clinical outcomes; and consider how therapeutic approaches might adapt in cases of weaker therapeutic alliance. Clinical Trial Registration:This trial is registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov , identifier (NCT03429075).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations225
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PharmacologySame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207