The Past, Present, and Future of Psychotherapy Manuals: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychotherapy manuals are critical to the dissemination of psychotherapy treatments. Psychotherapy manuals typically serve several purposes, including, but not limited to, establishing new psychotherapy treatments, training providers, disseminating treatments to those who deliver them, and providing guidelines to deliver treatments with fidelity. Yet, the proliferation of psychotherapy manuals has not been well-understood, and no work has aimed to assess or review the existing landscape of psychotherapy manuals. Little is known about the breadth, scope, and foci of extant psychotherapy manuals. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify and explore the landscape of existing book-based psychotherapy manuals. This review aims to specify the defining characteristics (ie, foci, clinical populations, clinical targets, treatment type, treatment modality, and adaptations) of existing book-based psychotherapy manuals. Further, this review will demonstrate how this information, and psychotherapy manuals more broadly, has changed over time. This project aims to make a novel contribution that will have critical implications for current methods of developing, aggregating, synthesizing, and translating knowledge about psychotherapeutic treatments. METHODS: This scoping review will review book-based psychotherapy manuals published from 1950 to 2022.This scoping review will be informed by guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology Group and prior scoping reviews. Traditional search and application programming interface-based search methods will be used with search terms defined a priori to identify relevant results using 3 large book databases: Google Books, WorldCat, and PsycINFO. This review will leverage machine learning methods to enhance and expedite the screening process. Primary screening of results will be conducted by at least 2 authors. Data will be extracted and double-coded by research assistants using an iteratively defined codebook. RESULTS: The search process produced 78,600 results, which were then iteratively deduplicated. Following deduplication, 50,583 results remained. The scoping review is expected to identify common elements of psychotherapy manuals, establish how the foci and content of manuals have changed over time, and illustrate coverage and gaps in the landscape of psychotherapy manuals. Results from this scoping review will be critical for future work focused on developing, aggregating, synthesizing, and disseminating knowledge about psychotherapeutic treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide knowledge about the vast landscape of psychotherapy manuals that exist. Findings from this study will inform future efforts to develop, aggregate, synthesize, and translate knowledge about psychotherapeutic treatments. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/47708.
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 | 0.112 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.022 |
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".