{"title":"Developing a taxonomy of supportive psychotherapy techniques: Protocol for a systematic review and qualitative content analysis.","authors":"Yuki Omiya, Chong Chen, Hissei Imai, Masahiro Hishiyama, Mariko Nakau, Takeshi Matsuda, Sadayuki Hashioka","doi":"10.1002/pcn5.70408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Such a taxonomy would provide a common language for clinicians and researchers, support precise specification of SP in trials, and facilitate structured training.</p>","PeriodicalId":74405,"journal":{"name":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","volume":"5 3","pages":"e70408"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13549220/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.70408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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.
背景:支持性心理治疗(SP)被广泛应用,但其组成技术从未被系统地识别或分类。作者和手册用不同的术语描述重叠但不相同的集合,SP和支持表达心理治疗(SEP)之间的界限仍然不清楚,阻碍了培训、研究和比较。本综述旨在识别和分类SP和SEP文献中的支持技术,并建立一个统一的分类法,分别映射SEP特定的表达技术,以澄清支持-表达边界。方法:本系统评价方案在研究设计中应用定性内容分析,遵循系统评价和荟萃分析方案的首选报告项目(PRISMA-P)。我们将检索MEDLINE (PubMed)、APA PsycINFO、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central)和Embase,从一开始就进行反向和正向引文检索。合格的来源是任何设计的同行评审出版物,描述至少一种特定的SP或SEP技术,加上预先指定的关键文本和手册。两名审稿人将独立筛选,从来源和技术层面(逐字)提取数据,并使用乔安娜布里格斯研究所(JBI)关键评估工具评估质量。定性内容分析将巩固同义描述,并通过混合归纳演绎方法建立分类。结果:我们期望产生一个统一的,分层组织的支持技术分类学,具有sep特异性表达技术的边界映射和在两个文献中的共识和分歧的表征。结论:这种分类法将为临床医生和研究人员提供一种共同的语言,支持临床试验中SP的精确规范,并促进结构化培训。