2008
DOI: 10.1348/147608307x270889
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effectiveness of psychodynamic‐interpersonal therapy (PIT) in routine clinical practice: A benchmarking comparison

Abstract: Benchmarking our results against both national and local comparative data showed that our results were less favourable than those obtained where PIT had been used in efficacy trials, but were comparable with reports of other therapies (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)) in routine practice settings. The results show that PIT can yield acceptable clinical outcomes, comparable to CBT in a routine care setting, within the context of current limitations of the practice-based evidence paradigm.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
1
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Three studies were later excluded because the paper did not provide the information necessary to confirm that the therapy met the criteria for STPP and we were unable to reach the investigators for additional information (Klasik, Krysta & Krzystanek, 2012;Quilty et al, 2008;Rolland et al, 2011). Three additional studies were further excluded because the papers did not include the data required to analyze the results in a meta-analysis and we were not able to receive this data from the authors (Paley et al, 2008;Stagno et al, 2007;Trijsburg, Trent & Perry, 2004). Thus, we ended up with 24 studies following the literature search update.…”
Section: Inclusion Of Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Three studies were later excluded because the paper did not provide the information necessary to confirm that the therapy met the criteria for STPP and we were unable to reach the investigators for additional information (Klasik, Krysta & Krzystanek, 2012;Quilty et al, 2008;Rolland et al, 2011). Three additional studies were further excluded because the papers did not include the data required to analyze the results in a meta-analysis and we were not able to receive this data from the authors (Paley et al, 2008;Stagno et al, 2007;Trijsburg, Trent & Perry, 2004). Thus, we ended up with 24 studies following the literature search update.…”
Section: Inclusion Of Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A global score lower than 15 indicates low self-esteem. The RSE has been empirically validated (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001) and administered previously to transgender individuals (Skrapec & MacKenzie, 1981;Vocks, Stahn, Loenser, & Legenbauer, 2009 (Barkham et al, 1996) and has been applied in both non-clinical (e.g., Berry, Wearden, Barrowclough, & Liversidge, 2006) and clinical samples (e.g., Arcelus et al, 2009;Paley et al, 2008). The Cronbach's alphas among the transgender and control groups across IIP subscales were >.62 and >.71 respectively.…”
Section: Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale (Rse; Rosenberg 1965) the Rsementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in other practice-based studies (e.g., Paley et al, 2008) inclusion criteria were minimal, and patients were not assigned a diagnosis by the psychologist prior to participating in the study. As in other practice-based studies (e.g., Paley et al, 2008) inclusion criteria were minimal, and patients were not assigned a diagnosis by the psychologist prior to participating in the study.…”
Section: Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effect sizes have drawbacks (Barkham et al, 2008;Westbrook & Kirk, 2005); however, they provide one way of gaining a sense of the progress patients make in therapy. Effect sizes have drawbacks (Barkham et al, 2008;Westbrook & Kirk, 2005); however, they provide one way of gaining a sense of the progress patients make in therapy.…”
Section: Analysis: Indexes Of Treatment Effectiveness and Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%