The future of psychological treatments: The Marburg Declaration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although psychological treatments are broadly recognized as evidence-based interventions for various mental disorders, challenges remain. For example, a substantial proportion of patients receiving such treatments do not fully recover, and many obstacles hinder the dissemination, implementation, and training of psychological treatments. These problems require those in our field to rethink some of our basic models of mental disorders and their treatments, and question how research and practice in clinical psychology should progress. To answer these questions, a group of experts of clinical psychology convened at a Think-Tank in Marburg, Germany, in August 2022 to review the evidence and analyze barriers for current and future developments. After this event, an overview of the current state-of-the-art was drafted and suggestions for improvements and specific recommendations for research and practice were integrated. Recommendations arising from our meeting cover further improving psychological interventions through translational approaches, improving clinical research methodology, bridging the gap between more nomothetic (group-oriented) studies and idiographic (person-centered) decisions, using network approaches in addition to selecting single mechanisms to embrace the complexity of clinical reality, making use of scalable digital options for assessments and interventions, improving the training and education of future psychotherapists, and accepting the societal responsibilities that clinical psychology has in improving national and global health care. The objective of the Marburg Declaration is to stimulate a significant change regarding our understanding of mental disorders and their treatments, with the aim to trigger a new era of evidence-based psychological interventions.
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 | 0.031 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".