
Within a naturalistic design 44 psychoanalytic treated patients are examined with regard to qualitative and quantitative outcome. The results are compared to 56 dynamic and 164 inpatient therapies. A comparison of symptoms, diagnoses and motivation before therapy leads to the conclusion that there are very different patient groups treated within this different settings. Therefore randomization seems to be an inadequate strategy to compare groups in different therapeutic settings. Using different criteria of outcome it can be demonstrated that psychoanalytic treated patients improve very well and to a larger extent than psychodynamically treated patients or inpatients. Different criteria of outcome and different observing perspectives (patient/therapist) lead to interesting results. Patients report primarily improvements in somatic, anxiety and depressive complaints. Therapists moreover report substantial improvements in interactional symptoms and behaviour. The different results in using several criteria are presented and discussed with regard to the methodology of outcome measurement. Finally recommendations for further studies in the psychoanalytic context are presented.
Depressive Disorder, Mental Disorders, Personality Assessment, Anxiety Disorders, Long-Term Care, Psychophysiologic Disorders, Psychoanalytic Therapy, Berlin, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Admission, Ambulatory Care, Humans, Somatoform Disorders, Follow-Up Studies
Depressive Disorder, Mental Disorders, Personality Assessment, Anxiety Disorders, Long-Term Care, Psychophysiologic Disorders, Psychoanalytic Therapy, Berlin, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Admission, Ambulatory Care, Humans, Somatoform Disorders, Follow-Up Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 34 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
