Preliminary evidence for the importance of therapeutic alliance in MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: MDMA-assisted psychotherapy (MDMA-AP) is a combined psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic intervention that shows promise in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Although therapeutic alliance has been established as a key predictor across psychotherapies and is emphasised within MDMA-AP treatment manuals, research has not yet examined the relationship between therapeutic alliance and MDMA-AP treatment outcomes.Objective: Examine whether therapeutic alliance predicts changes in PTSD symptoms following MDMA-AP.Method: Twenty-three individuals with chronic PTSD participated in a MDMA-AP clinical trial that included a randomised (MDMA vs. placebo) and open-label phase. The present analyses focused on participants who were administered MDMA over the course of the randomised and open-label phases (n = 22). Therapeutic alliance was assessed using the Working Alliance Inventory at sessions baseline (pre-session 3) and sessions 4 and 9. PTSD symptoms were assessed using the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised.Results: Controlling for baseline clinician-assessed PTSD severity, therapeutic alliance at sessions 4 and 9 (but not baseline) significantly predicted post-MDMA-AP clinician-assessed PTSD severity. Controlling for baseline self-reported PTSD severity, therapeutic alliance at baseline (although this did not survive correction for multiple comparisons) and sessions 4 and 9 predicted post-MDMA-AP self-reported PTSD severity.Conclusions: The present results provide the first preliminary evidence for the relationship between the therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes within MDMA-AP for PTSD. These findings highlight the important role of psychotherapy, and common psychotherapeutic factors, within MDMA-AP. Replication in studies with larger and more diverse clinical samples remain necessary.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00090064.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".