MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399723683 · doi:10.32920/26052859

How Does Psilocybin Therapy Work? an Exploration of Experiential Avoidance as a Putative Mechanism of Change

2024· preprint· en· W4399723683 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Zeifman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsilocybinMechanism (biology)Experiential learningPsychologyExperiential avoidancePsychotherapistHallucinogenCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceEpistemologyAnxietyPsychiatryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although psilocybin therapy is currently receiving attention as a novel intervention for a wide range of mental health concerns, limited research has examined the underlying psychological mechanisms (i.e., how) through which psilocybin therapy may bring about positive therapeutic changes. Qualitative research highlights the role of reductions in experiential avoidance (i.e., avoidance or suppression of aversive states) within psilocybin therapy. However, no quantitative research has examined experiential avoidance as a mechanism of change underlying psilocybin therapy's effects. Accordingly, the purpose of this dissertation is to investigate whether psilocybin therapy: (a) leads to reductions in experiential avoidance and (b) improved mental health (e.g., increased well-being and decreased depression severity, anxiety, and suicidal ideation) via reductions in experiential avoidance. This dissertation examined these questions within two studies that included the administration of psilocybin. Study 1 was a quasiexperimental study that examined the effect of administering 1 mg (very low-dose) psilocybin and 25 mg (high-dose) psilocybin to healthy individuals (N = 28). Relative to participants' experiential avoidance when they enrolled in the study, no significant reductions in experiential avoidance were observed throughout the study. Non-significant increases in experiential avoidance were observed following 1 mg psilocybin. Subsequently, significant reductions in experiential avoidance were observed 2 and 4 weeks after 25 mg psilocybin. These reductions in experiential avoidance following 25 mg psilocybin were significantly greater than those observed following 1 mg psilocybin. Decreases in experiential avoidance were sustained at 3 months (but not at 6 months) after 25 mg psilocybin. Reductions in experiential avoidance that occurred 2 weeks after 25 mg psilocybin (but not 1 mg psilocybin) predicted improvements in mental health (i.e., increases in well-being and decreases in depressed and anxious mood) 4 weeks after 25 mg psilocybin. Relative to 1 mg psilocybin, reductions in experiential avoidance following 25 mg psilocybin was a significantly greater predictor of changes in anxious mood (but failed to reach significance for well-being and depressed mood). Study 2 was a randomized controlled trial that compared psilocybin therapy with escitalopram (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) for major depressive disorder (N = 59). Relative to escitalopram, psilocybin therapy led to significant reductions in experiential avoidance. Within the psilocybin therapy (but not the escitalopram) condition, reductions in experiential avoidance indirectly affected improvements in mental health (i.e., increased well-being and decreased depression severity, suicidal ideation, and trait anxiety). These indirect effects were significantly larger in the psilocybin therapy condition (for well-being, depression severity, and trait anxiety but not for suicidal ideation), providing evidence for the role of experiential avoidance being specific to psilocybin therapy. These results provide preliminary support for the positive effects of psilocybin therapy on experiential avoidance and the potential role of experiential avoidance as a putative mechanism underlying psilocybin therapy’s positive therapeutic outcomes. Limitations of the present studies include difficulties surrounding establishing temporal causality, issues with the experimental designs, relatively small sample sizes, and reliance upon self-report. The present findings may help to tailor and refine psilocybin therapy and its delivery as a transdiagnostic mental health intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207