Brief psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP)

Article written and reviewed by Dr Luca Moretti

Brief psychodynamic psychotherapy, referred to in the international literature mainly as Short-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (STPP), is not a single uniform treatment but a family of time limited psychodynamic interventions. In depression, these approaches explore how affects, defenses, relational expectations and recurring interpersonal patterns may contribute to current distress, while maintaining a sufficiently circumscribed focus to be addressed within a brief or time limited treatment.

The term “psychodynamic” derives from the psychoanalytic tradition, but contemporary STPPs differ from classical psychoanalysis in frequency, duration, setting, degree of focus and therapist activity. Many protocols are manualized, define explicit goals and use outcome measures. It is not accurate to describe them simply as free exploration of the unconscious, nor to attribute to all models specific techniques such as the “triangle of conflict” or the “triangle of persons”, which belong to particular schools.

The empirical basis for depression is broader than the historical image of psychodynamic therapy as a non experimental treatment might suggest. Specific meta analyses from 2010 and 2015 found STPP effective for adult depression. A 2024 meta analysis, limited to randomized trials with diagnosed depression and direct comparison between manualized psychodynamic psychotherapy and manualized CBT, found equivalence in depressive symptoms immediately after treatment; follow up data were insufficient to conclude equivalence.

Psychodynamic principles relevant to depression

Psychodynamic formulations start from the idea that symptoms acquire meaning within the person's affective and relational history. In depression, themes of loss, self criticism, guilt, shame, anger, dependence, autonomy, need for approval and recurring ways of managing closeness and separation may be explored. These themes are not regarded as universal causes of depression and do not replace biological, cognitive, behavioral or social models; they are clinical hypotheses to be tested in the individual case.

A central concept is that of defense, meaning partly automatic ways through which a person regulates affects, impulses or conflicts. Defenses may be more or less adaptive depending on the context. A patient might minimize anger and interpersonal needs, turn hostility against themselves or withdraw to prevent an expected rejection. The therapist does not presume these dynamics on the basis of the diagnosis: they infer them cautiously from repeated patterns and assess their plausibility together with the patient.

Relational patterns are another frequent target. Expectations developed in previous relationships can influence current perceptions and behaviors, contributing to interpersonal cycles that confirm the initial expectations. For example, inevitably expecting criticism may encourage withdrawal or defensiveness and make a negative response from the other person more likely. A psychodynamic formulation seeks the concrete sequence without reducing every current conflict to a childhood event.

The therapeutic relationship provides information about these patterns. The transference refers to the emergence, within the relationship with the therapist, of expectations, affects and relational modes that may reflect broader patterns. In STPP, transference may be explored when relevant to the focus, but its use varies considerably across models. It is not necessary to interpret every patient reaction as transference.

Countertransference, understood in the contemporary sense as the set of the therapist's responses to the patient, can provide information but requires self reflection and supervision to avoid mistaking personal reactions for objective data. The quality of therapist training is therefore particularly important in approaches in which the relationship itself is used as an instrument of understanding and change.

Formulating the focus and treatment structure

An STPP begins with diagnostic assessment, risk assessment and evaluation of suitability for the setting. Severe depression, suicidal ideation, psychotic or manic symptoms, substance use, trauma, personality disorders and medical conditions must be recognized and managed as needed. The psychodynamic model does not replace psychiatric assessment and must not delay urgent interventions.

The therapist then formulates a focus that links symptoms, affects, conflicts and current relationships in a sufficiently specific way. An effective focus is neither an additional diagnosis nor a personality label. It serves to select what will be explored in depth and what will remain outside the brief treatment. This selectivity is a fundamental difference from an open ended psychodynamic course without a defined time limit.

Duration varies according to the model. Some protocols use a few dozen sessions, while others are shorter or more extended. There is no universal threshold of 12, 16 or 25 sessions that defines all STPPs. The presence of a time limit is generally made explicit from the beginning and becomes part of treatment planning, including work on termination.

During sessions, the therapist alternates between supportive interventions and expressive interventions in different proportions. Supportive interventions aim to stabilize, clarify, support adaptive functions and foster the alliance; expressive interventions explore meanings, defenses, conflicts and relational patterns. The choice depends on the patient's capacity to tolerate exploration, severity and the goals of the protocol.

Clarification helps make what the patient describes more precise; confrontation draws attention to discrepancies or observable patterns; interpretation proposes a possible meaning or connection. A good interpretation is a hypothesis to be evaluated, not an infallible revelation by the therapist. If it produces misunderstanding or a rupture in the alliance, it should be reconsidered.

The final phase addresses progress, residual problems and therapeutic separation. In a time limited treatment, the ending is not an unexpected administrative event but part of the work. Reactions to termination may be explored when relevant to the focus, without pathologizing normal sadness at the end of a meaningful therapeutic relationship.

Techniques and the role of the therapeutic relationship

STPPs share attention to emotions and relational patterns, but differ in technique. Some models are relatively supportive, others more interpretive or focused on affective experience. For this reason, a scientifically accurate article should avoid presenting a single school as if it defined all brief psychodynamic psychotherapy.

The exploration of affects aims to identify emotions that the patient experiences, avoids or transforms into secondary responses. In depression, sadness may coexist with anger, fear, shame and a desire for closeness. The therapist seeks to increase the ability to recognize and use these emotions without assuming that intense expression is always therapeutic.

The analysis of defenses concerns how the patient avoids or modifies emotional experience. The therapist may point out, for example, a tendency to move rapidly from emotion to abstract analysis or to devalue every need. The pace of the intervention must be compatible with the patient's regulatory capacity, because premature confrontation may increase shame or disorganization.

The therapeutic relationship is also observed to identify alliance ruptures. A patient who feels criticized by the therapist may be reproducing a recurring relational expectation, but may also have correctly perceived an unempathic intervention. A modern psychodynamic perspective requires considering both possibilities and repairing the relationship when necessary.

Work on the past is used when it helps understand current patterns, not as biographical reconstruction for its own sake. STPP remains oriented toward the problems maintaining distress in the present and toward agreed goals. A historical connection is clinically useful only if it changes current understanding, experience or behavior.

Therapeutic alliance is not merely a generic prerequisite but a process to be monitored. Ruptures may appear as withdrawal, apparent agreement, irritation or explicit disagreement and require exploration before interpretive work is intensified. The therapist's ability to recognize their own contribution to a rupture protects against dogmatic use of psychodynamic concepts and fosters an environment in which the patient can test new relational patterns.

Efficacy in depression: meta analyses and comparisons with CBT

The 2010 meta analysis by Driessen and colleagues found that STPP was effective in treating adult depression compared with control conditions, with benefits maintained at follow up in several studies. The subsequent 2015 update expanded the database and confirmed evidence of efficacy, while highlighting the need for higher quality studies and the heterogeneity of protocols.

Comparison with CBT is particularly relevant because it helps distinguish absolute from relative efficacy. Earlier studies and meta analyses did not show large, consistent differences. The 2024 meta analysis by Smith and Hewitt applied formal equivalence tests to nine randomized trials comparing manualized psychodynamic psychotherapy with manualized CBT in adults with diagnosed depressive disorders.

In that meta analysis, depressive outcomes immediately after treatment met the statistical criteria for equivalence between PDT and CBT. At follow up, considering the longest time point within one year, the data were insufficient to conclude either equivalence or difference. This result is more precise than generic statements such as “psychodynamic therapy is identical to CBT”: the demonstrated equivalence concerns a specific population, manualized protocols, a particular outcome and the post treatment time point.

Network meta analyses of the main psychotherapies for depression support the overall efficacy of several approaches and do not show a simple hierarchy that applies to every patient. However, the number of trials for CBT is much larger, producing more precise estimates and a more established evidence base for guidelines and implementation. The size of the evidence corpus is distinct from the average efficacy observed in direct comparisons.

Major guidelines consider structured psychotherapies in treatment selection, and some explicitly include brief psychodynamic forms in certain situations. Their position varies across documents and levels of severity. It is therefore incorrect to define STPP either as a universally first line treatment or, conversely, as an approach without evidence.

Indications, relative contraindications and therapeutic integration

An STPP may be particularly consistent with patients interested in understanding recurring emotional and relational patterns and able to work on a focus within a defined period. No personality characteristic, however, guarantees a better response than other treatments. The choice should consider preferences, response history, accessibility, therapist competence and comorbidity.

In very vulnerable patients or those with severe disorganization, it may be necessary to prioritize more supportive interventions, stabilization and specific treatments before intensive interpretive work. This is not an absolute contraindication to psychodynamic psychotherapy, but requires adaptation of the expressive level and setting. The diagnosis alone does not automatically determine the appropriate technique.

STPP can be combined with pharmacotherapy. The combination may be indicated in more severe, persistent or recurrent depression, or with partial response, according to guidelines and individual assessment. The therapist should not interpret antidepressant use as psychological resistance and should not suggest medication changes outside their prescribing competence.

High suicide risk, mania, psychosis, catatonia and severe impairment of self care require urgent and often multimodal management. In such conditions, outpatient psychodynamic treatment should not be used as the sole clinical response. Safety and stabilization take precedence over exploration of the psychological meaning of symptoms.

The presence of trauma also requires attention. Intense affective exploration or premature interpretation may increase distress and dissociation in some patients. Treatment should be titrated, safety oriented and, when indicated, integrated with or replaced by protocols specifically validated for the traumatic disorder.

The balance between supportive and expressive intervention can change during the same treatment. A crisis phase, medical illness or recent bereavement may temporarily require greater support and less interpretive pressure. This flexibility does not mean abandoning the model: it allows the focus to be maintained while respecting the patient's capacity to process affects without becoming destabilized.

Monitoring, termination and prognosis

Outcome monitoring is compatible with psychodynamic practice and improves clinical quality. Measures of depressive symptoms, functioning and the therapeutic alliance can signal lack of improvement or deterioration. Depth of insight should not be used as the sole criterion of success if symptoms and functioning do not improve.

Treatment termination reviews the initial focus, the patterns understood, new ways of recognizing and regulating affects, and strategies to use in the future. Some problems may remain unaddressed because brief treatment is necessarily selective. The therapist should acknowledge these limitations and discuss the possible need for further care without presenting the predetermined ending as proof that everything has been resolved.

Prognosis depends on the overall depressive disorder, not on the therapist's theoretical orientation. Multiple episodes, chronicity, residual symptoms, comorbidity, persistent stress and a poor social network increase relapse risk. A favorable response to STPP may translate into reduced symptoms and greater relational and emotional flexibility, but still requires a prevention plan appropriate to individual risk.

Future research should clarify which patients benefit most from different psychodynamic models, which processes mediate change and how outcomes are maintained over the long term. Pragmatic studies, independent replications and comparisons with active treatments of equal intensity are particularly important for reducing residual uncertainty.

Supervision is particularly useful when the therapist uses their own emotional reactions as a source of information. Unsupervised interpretation of countertransference can be confused with personal preferences or vulnerabilities. Training, supervision and adherence to a manualized model therefore increase reproducibility of the intervention and make translation of trial evidence into clinical practice more consistent.

If significant symptoms persist at the end, the predetermined termination should not prevent a new therapeutic decision. Continuation in a different setting, pharmacotherapy, another psychotherapy or a combined pathway may be indicated. Prognosis improves when the end of STPP is also used to define clearly what has been achieved, what remains unresolved and which signs require reassessment.

Bibliography
1. Smith MM et al. The equivalence of psychodynamic therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy for depressive disorders in adults: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 80(5), 2024, 945-967.
2. Driessen E et al. The efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression: a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 30(1), 2010, 25-36.
3. Driessen E et al. The efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression: A meta-analysis update. Clinical Psychology Review. 42, 2015, 1-15.
4. Leichsenring F. Comparative effects of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy in depression: a meta-analytic approach. Clinical Psychology Review. 21(3), 2001, 401-419.
5. Malan DH. The Frontier of Brief Psychotherapy: An Example of the Convergence of Research and Clinical Practice. Plenum Medical Book Company, 1976.
6. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Depression in adults: treatment and management. NICE guideline NG222. 2022; last reviewed 2026.
7. Lam RW et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2023 Update on Clinical Guidelines for Management of Major Depressive Disorder in Adults. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 69(9), 2024, 641-687.
8. Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Major Depressive Disorder. Version 4.0. Washington, DC, 2022.
9. American Psychological Association. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression Across Three Age Cohorts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2019.
10. Cuijpers P et al. Psychotherapies for depression: a network meta-analysis covering efficacy, acceptability and long-term outcomes of all main treatment types. World Psychiatry. 20(2), 2021, 283-293.
11. Cuijpers P et al. Cognitive behavior therapy vs. control conditions, other psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and combined treatment for depression: a comprehensive meta-analysis including 409 trials with 52,702 patients. World Psychiatry. 22(1), 2023, 105-115.
12. Cuijpers P et al. Psychologic Treatment of Depression Compared With Pharmacotherapy and Combined Treatment in Primary Care: A Network Meta-Analysis. Annals of Family Medicine. 19(3), 2021, 262-270.
13. Cuijpers P et al. Adding psychotherapy to antidepressant medication in depression and anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis. World Psychiatry. 13(1), 2014, 56-67.