Halifax somatic symptom disorder trial: A pilot randomized controlled trial of intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients commonly present at hospital Emergency Departments (ED) with distress that meet criteria for a Somatic Symptom and Related Disorder (SSRD). Without access to effective treatment, risk of ongoing patient disability and further ED visits is high. METHOD: This pilot trial used a randomized parallel group design to test the efficacy of Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy (ISTDP). ED patients who met criteria for SSRD were recruited. The effects of ISTDP plus medical care as usual (MCAU) were judged through comparison against 8 weeks of MCAU plus wait-list symptom monitoring (WL-SM). The primary outcome was somatic symptom at 8 weeks. Patients allocated to WL-SM could cross-over to receive ISTDP and 6-month follow-up data was collected. Baseline measures of patient attachment style and alexithymia were collected to examine vulnerabilities to somatic symptoms. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT02076867. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were randomized to 2 groups (ISTDP = 19 and WL-SM = 18). Multi-level modelling showed that change over time on somatic symptoms was significantly greater in the ISTDP group. Between-group differences were large at 8 weeks (Cohen's d = 0.94) and increased by end of treatment (Cohen's d = 1.54). Observed differences in symptoms of depression and illness anxiety were also large, favoring ISTDP, and effects were maintained at follow-up. Patients receiving ISTDP had reduced ED service utilization at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ISTDP appears an efficacious treatment for SSRD and a larger randomized trial is justified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".