Connecting and Healing: The Role of Existential Isolation in Mediating the Impact of the Therapeutic Relationship on Canadian Men’s Mental Health Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The therapeutic relationship has emerged as one of the most important components of successful treatment outcomes, regardless of the specific form of therapy. Research has now turned its attention to better understanding how the therapeutic relationship contributes to patient improvement. Extant literature contends that a strong therapeutic relationship may help reduce a patient's sense of existential isolation (i.e., a sense of not feeling understood by others). Research indicates that existential isolation might be especially problematic for men, potentially increasing their risk for suicidality. This study investigated the association between strength of the therapeutic relationship and psychological distress and suicidality among men who received psychotherapy, and whether existential isolation mediated this association. A total of 204 Canadian men who had previously attended psychotherapy participated in a cross-sectional survey, completing measures of the quality of their most recent therapeutic relationship, existential isolation, depression and anxiety symptoms, and suicidality. Regression with mediation analysis was conducted. Two models were tested; one with depression/anxiety symptoms as the dependent variable and the other with suicidality as the dependent variable. Both mediation models emerged as significant, indicating an indirect effect for quality of the therapeutic relationship on symptoms of anxiety/depression and suicidality through existential isolation. The findings suggest that a positive therapeutic relationship can contribute to men feeling less isolated in their experiences in life (i.e., less existentially isolated), thereby helping mitigate psychological distress and suicidality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".