Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (Brief vs Standard Duration) for Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is some evidence from research that suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp) might offer some advantage if offered in combination with pharmacological treatments for people with schizophrenia. There are, however, limitations in its provision due to available resource and training issues. Brief forms of CBTp might be an alternative in settings with limited resources. Brief therapies have shown to be as effective as standard therapies for some nonpsychotic disorders. There is some evidence in favor of brief CBTp. We wanted to review the effects of brief CBTp for people with schizophrenia compared with standard CBTp. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with schizophrenia or related disorders, comparing brief cognitive behavioral therapy for people with psychosis vs standard CBTp. We found only 7 studies which used a brief version of CBTp, but no study compared brief CBTp with CBTp of standard duration. There is a need for RCTs which compare brief with standard CBTp. This review also highlighted the need for setting standard criteria for CBTp dose. For this review, we considered brief CBTp to be delivered within 4 months and using 6-10 sessions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".