Psychedelic assisted psychotherapy (2020–2025): a scoping review of clinical evidence, mechanisms, safety, and ethics

ABSTRACT Introduction Anxiety is central to the psychotherapy process, yet psychotherapists routinely infer a client's anxiety intensity from observable behaviour rather than from formal measurement, with no widely accepted framework to organise which observable markers indicate which levels of anxiety. This exploratory study examined how therapists make such classifications. Method Ninety‐one mental health professionals were randomly assigned to classify 41 text‐described behavioural and physiological markers using either a 5‐level or a simplified 3‐level category system, both derived from an integrated model of state anxiety in psychotherapy. Results Response distributions departed significantly from uniformity for nearly all markers in both formats, and the rank ordering of markers by intensity was highly consistent across formats, suggesting that therapists may share broad intuitions about relative marker intensity. Which markers elicited agreement, however, was far less reproducible, depending substantially on the response format. Convergence also depended on where the agreement criterion was set, declining from 90.2% to 51.2% of markers in the 3‐level format and from 63.4% to 22.0% in the 5‐level format as the criterion rose from > 0.50 to > 0.70. The 3‐level format yielded more classifiable markers at every criterion, although this advantage was not consistent across indices, whereas the 5‐level format elicited fewer ‘Insufficient to Determine’ responses. Markers placed at the highest intensity levels were classified most consistently. Discussion These findings offer preliminary groundwork for research on marker operationalisation, contextualised rating tasks and the development of training materials for psychotherapy process research.

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic created social disruptions, leading to high levels of mental health problems for adolescents. Interpersonal stressors, such as lack of familial support, peer victimization, and discrimination, may have further exacerbated teen mental health issues. Yet, the psychological impact of interpersonal stressors and their interactive effects with high levels of loneliness remains unknown. In this pre-registered study , conducted in November and December 2020 (approximately eight months into the COVID-19 pandemic), we used a diverse sample of adolescents from across 43 U.S. states with elevated depressive symptoms (n = 2,452, ages 13–16) to examine how familial support, peer victimization, and discrimination are concurrently associated with mental health outcomes. Results indicated that perceived discrimination was the strongest standardized correlate across continuous internalizing outcomes (depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and hopelessness), whereas lack of familial support was the primary correlate of suicidal ideation; if youth reported a lack of familial support, they were over three times as likely to report suicidal ideation. Loneliness significantly moderated the cross-sectional links between lack of familial support and depressive symptoms, as well as perceived discrimination and hopelessness. Simple slope probing demonstrated a distress ceiling effect: interpersonal stressors were most strongly associated with elevated distress among youth reporting low baseline loneliness, whereas youth experiencing high loneliness exhibited consistently elevated distress regardless of stressor exposure. These findings underscore interpersonal stressors and loneliness as high-priority targets for youth prevention and intervention programs, particularly during periods of widespread social disruption.

Objective: The study aimed to evaluate the internalised stigma and self-esteem in adult outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a psychiatric outpatient clinic in Iraq, and to explore the relationship between these variables. Methods: A cross-sectional correlational study among 120 adults with MDD who attended psychiatric outpatient clinics of Azadi Teaching Hospital in Kirkuk, Iraq. All participants filled out a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire, the Internalised Stigma of Mental Illness Scale (ISMI), and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient and simple linear regression. Results: The overall mean ISMI score was 2.90 (SD = 0.42), with the highest scores for stereotype endorsement (M = 3.16) and alienation (M = 3.14) and the lowest for stigma resistance (M = 2.19). The overall mean RSES score was 2.29 (SD = 0.38). There was a negative correlation between internalised stigma and self-esteem (r = −0.338, p < 0.001). Self-esteem was statistically associated with internalised stigma (β = −0.338, t = −3.897, p < 0.001), explaining 11.4% of the variance (R² = 0.114) in simple linear regression. Conclusions: In this single-centre sample of adults with MDD, internalised stigma and self-esteem were inversely related. Since the study is a cross-sectional design, the association observed cannot be considered a causal relationship. The results provide a basis for consideration of the psychosocial aspects of routine psychiatric care (stigma and self-esteem) and for further longitudinal and multicentre research to establish temporal relationships and to determine potentially modifiable factors.

University students who live away from their families may experience loneliness and depressive symptoms, while perceived social support may alter this relationship. This study examined the associations among loneliness, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms and tested whether perceived social support moderated the loneliness-depressive symptoms relationship. A cross-sectional quantitative design involved 396 university students living in boarding houses in Yogyakarta. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlations and moderated multiple regression. Perceived social support was negatively associated with depressive symptoms. Loneliness was also significantly associated with depressive symptoms, but the direction was negative and therefore did not support the proposed positive hypothesis. The interaction between loneliness and perceived social support was significant, indicating that the loneliness slope differed across levels of support. The findings highlight the relevance of perceived social support for student mental health while also showing that the unexpected loneliness pattern requires cautious interpretation and replication.

Abstract Background Repetitive negative thinking (RNT) is a transdiagnostic process relevant to common mental health problems in primary care. RNT-ACT is a brief acceptance and commitment therapy-based protocol targeting RNT in two sessions. This pilot study assessed the feasibility of RNT-ACT compared with therapist-supported internet-based cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT) in Swedish primary care. Methods Thirteen participants were randomised: 7 to RNT-ACT and 6 to iCBT. The primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, intervention non-completion, and patient satisfaction measured with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Symptom and process measures were secondary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 1- and 3-month follow-ups. Analyses were descriptive and exploratory, based on available observations without imputation of missing data. Results Thirteen of 20 eligible individuals were enrolled (65%), corresponding to 35% of all 37 individuals screened. All participants in the RNT-ACT group completed the intervention, whereas 4 of 6 participants in the iCBT group did not complete the intervention. Mean CSQ-8 scores were 27.8 (SD 3.7; n = 5) in the RNT-ACT group and 23.0 (SD 0.0; n = 2) in the iCBT group. Conclusions The small sample size and high iCBT non-completion limit between-group comparisons. Further investigation of recruitment, treatment engagement, and patient and therapist experiences is needed before determining whether and how to proceed to a full-scale RCT. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05946382 registered July 14, 2023.