Comparison of the Effectiveness of Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy and Schema Therapy on Alexithymia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Young’s Schema Therapy and Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy on alexithymia in patients with chronic kidney disease. Methods and Materials: The study employed an experimental design with pretest–posttest and a three-month follow-up, including a control group. The statistical population consisted of patients with chronic kidney disease in the city of Mashhad in 2023. A total of 45 participants were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to three groups of 15 participants each (two experimental groups and one control group). The first experimental group received Young’s Schema Therapy over eight sessions, while the second experimental group underwent Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy over fifteen sessions, whereas the control group received no intervention. The research instrument was the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994). The data were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. Findings: The results indicated that both therapeutic approaches were significantly more effective than the control group in reducing alexithymia among patients with chronic kidney disease, and these effects remained stable at the three-month follow-up. However, comparison of the two interventions showed that Schema Therapy demonstrated significantly greater effectiveness than Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy at the follow-up stage (p < .001). Conclusion: The findings suggest that both therapeutic approaches are beneficial and durable for patients with chronic kidney disease, with Schema Therapy exhibiting a statistically significant superiority.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".