ArticlePCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences2026
Developing a taxonomy of supportive psychotherapy techniques: Protocol for a systematic review and qualitative content analysis.
Article in PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Supportive psychotherapy (SP) is widely practiced, yet its constituent techniques have never been systematically identified or classified. Authors and manuals describe overlapping but non-identical sets in varying terminology, and the boundary between SP and supportive-expressive psychotherapy (SEP) remains unclear, impeding training, research, and comparison. This review aims to identify and classify supportive techniques across the SP and SEP literature and develop a consolidated taxonomy, mapping SEP-specific expressive techniques separately to clarify the supportive-expressive boundary. Methods: This systematic review protocol, applying qualitative content analysis across study designs, follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will search MEDLINE (PubMed), APA PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from inception, with backward and forward citation searches. Eligible sources are peer-reviewed publications of any design describing at least one specific SP or SEP technique, plus prespecified key texts and manuals. Two reviewers will independently screen, extract data at source and technique levels (verbatim), and appraise quality with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. Qualitative content analysis will consolidate synonymous descriptions and build the taxonomy through a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Results: We expect to produce a consolidated, hierarchically organized taxonomy of supportive techniques, with a boundary mapping of SEP-specific expressive techniques and a characterization of consensus and divergence across both literatures. Conclusions: Such a taxonomy would provide a common language for clinicians and researchers, support precise specification of SP in trials, and facilitate structured training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.