Blog

Zimmermann, D., Wampold, B.E., Rubel, J., Schwartz, B., Poster, K., … & Lutz, W. (2020) The influence of extra-therapeutic social support on the association between therapeutic bond and treatment outcome, Psychotherapy Research, DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2020.1847344

Researchers have known for many years that the number of social supports and the size of a patient’s social network have a positive impact on patient outcomes in psychotherapy. Social supports reduce loneliness, and higher loneliness is an important cause of distress. Research has also demonstrated quite convincingly that the relationship in psychotherapy plays an important role in patient mental health outcomes. The therapeutic alliance, for example, is one of the most researched concepts in psychotherapy and shows a clear and positive association with client improvement across a number of theoretical orientations and client problems. The therapeutic alliance is the collaborative agreement between client and therapist on the tasks and goals of therapy, and also their relational bond. The bond includes trust, respect, and confidence in the therapist. This is important because aspects of mental health, like emotion regulation, develop partly in social and intimate relationships, including in the therapeutic relationship. If the therapeutic relationship works to reduce loneliness and improve emotion regulation, then a positive therapeutic relationship will be particularly important for clients with less social support. In this study, Zimmerman and colleagues examined if an extra-therapeutic factor (social support) interacted with an intra-therapeutic factor (therapeutic alliance) to predict client outcomes. Over 1200 adult clients were treated by 164 experienced therapists who were guided by CBT manuals. Patients received 42.77 sessions on average (SD = 19.97), social support was assessed at the start of treatment, and alliance and outcomes were monitored after every session. On average, clients improved throughout treatment. Clients who had more social supports and who reported a better bond with their therapist improved the most. Of particular interest was the interaction between social support and bond. Those clients with lower social supports benefitted more if they also had a good therapeutic bond, and clients with a good therapeutic bond did well regardless of their level of social support.

Practice Implications

Both extra-therapeutic social support and intra-therapeutic bond with the therapist uniquely contributed to better outcomes for clients. However, a good therapeutic bond with the therapist appears to be particularly important for all clients, especially those with low levels of social supports. Psychotherapists would do well to assess the level and quality of their clients’ social support. And in all cases, especially for clients with low social support, therapists should work to develop and maintain a supportive and trusting therapeutic bond with their clients.

Clients of Therapists Who Are Flexible Have Better Outcomes

Katz, M., Hilsenroth, M. J., Gold, J. R., Moore, M., Pitman, S. R., Levy, S. R., & Owen, J. (2019). Adherence, flexibility, and outcome in psychodynamic treatment of depression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 94–103.

Psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral (CB) treatments are quite different in how therapy is delivered, but both are equally effective for depression. Such findings suggest that various types of specific interventions can positively impact client outcomes. A possible mechanisms of therapeutic action is that effective therapists may be particularly responsive to their clients’ behaviors and needs. That is, effective therapists may be flexible in how adherent they are to the techniques of a therapeutic orientation. Therapists who are flexible in their adherence to a therapeutic technique may promote a better therapeutic alliance (i.e., a therapist’s and client’s collaborative agreement on the goals of therapy and what to do in therapy). In this study, Katz and colleagues examined whether the flexible use of some CB techniques by psychodynamic therapists was related to better client outcomes in terms of depressive symptoms. Forty six patients diagnosed with depression were treated by 26 advanced graduate student therapists who were trained to practice psychodynamic therapy. Psychodynamic therapy techniques included: a focus on affect and affect expression, identifying relational patterns and patterns of thoughts and feelings, emphasizing past experiences and interpersonal relationships, working on the therapeutic alliance, and restructuring defense mechanisms. The researchers video recorded two early sessions of therapy which were independently rated to assess the degree to which therapists adhered to psychodynamic therapy principles or to CB therapy principles. Client depression outcomes were assessed pre- and post-therapy. Higher ratings of psychodynamic therapy adherence were related to better patient depression outcomes at post-treatment. In addition, the clients of psychodynamic therapists who used some CB techniques early in therapy had the best outcomes. In other words, the use of psychodynamic techniques was sufficient for clients to improve, but flexible use of some CB techniques by psychodynamic therapists provided added benefit. The CB techniques that were most often integrated by the therapists included: actively initiating topics and therapeutic activities, explaining the rationale of an intervention, focusing on the future, and providing psychoeducation about symptoms.

Practice Implications

Clients in this study improved on average from psychodynamic therapy, and psychodynamic interventions were related to better outcomes. However, clients of therapists who flexibly integrated a small amount of CB techniques benefitted more from the psychodynamic techniques. Research is increasingly showing that therapist flexibility in treatment adherence is related to better patient outcomes. For psychodynamic therapists, flexibility in treatment adherence leads to clients being more responsive to the interventions and having better outcomes.

Pybis, J., Saxon, D., Hill, A., & Barkham, M. (2017). The comparative effectiveness and efficiency of cognitive behaviour therapy and generic counselling in the treatment of depression: Evidence from the 2nd UK National Audit of psychological therapies. BMC Psychiatry, 17, 215. DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1370-7

Over a decade ago the United Kingdom (UK) invested large sums of public dollars to fund the Increasing Access to Psychotherapy (IAPT) program. In IAPT, most patients receive cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) as first-line treatment for depression or anxiety, and may receive generic counseling as second line treatment. One of the admirable aspects of IAPT is that the program consistently assesses outcomes, makes its data available for analyses, and publishes yearly reports on their outcomes. In this very large study, Pybis and colleagues assess whether CBT and generic counseling have different outcomes for patients with depression or anxiety. Over 33,000 patients who received treatment at one of 103 sites were in the study. Most patients (about 23,000) receiving CBT, and the others (about 10,000) receiving generic counseling. Two-thirds of the patients were female, most (84%) were white British, and the mean age was 41 (SD = 13.86). CBT focused on changing negative thoughts and behaviors in order to improve depressive symptoms. Generic counselling was harder to define, though the authors described these therapists as practicing in an integrative manner by bringing skills from training in different forms of psychotherapy. Generic counseling therapists did not focus on giving advice or opinions, but rather on helping clients understand themselves better. Pre- to post-treatment effect sizes for CBT (0.94 [0.92, 0.95]) and generic counseling (0.95 [0.92, 0.98]) were equivalent for depression outcomes. In CBT 50.4% of patients reliably improved, whereas 49.6% reliably improved if they received generic counseling. The average number of sessions attended by patients in the two treatments (CBT = 8.9 [6.34]; counseling = 7.5 [5.54]) were also equivalent. However, there were significant site effects. That is, a moderate and significant amount of patient outcomes (15%) could be accounted for by the site at which they received treatment (i.e., some sites or clinics had better outcomes than others).

Practice Implications

Generic counseling as provided in the IAPT in the UK was as effective as structured CBT for reducing symptoms of depression. However, almost half of patients did not improve in either treatment. Generic counseling was likely a label used to describe integrative psychotherapy that followed principles from a variety of psychotherapies that were based on psychological principles. There were much larger site/clinic effects than treatment modality effects, so that clients in some clinics had better than clients who received treatment in other clinics. This is consistent with research on therapist effects that show that some therapists are more effective than others, regardless of their orientation. This research suggests that training therapists to be more effective by improving their facilitative interpersonal skills may yield better outcomes for clients.

Bar-Kalifa, E., Atzil-Slonim, D., Rafaeli, E., Peri, T., Rubel, J., & Lutz, W. (2016, October 24). Therapist–client agreement in assessments of clients’ functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000157.

There has been a lot of research in the past decade on progress monitoring (i.e., regularly providing reliable feedback to therapists on client outcomes, the alliance, and client functioning). This research indicates that client outcomes can be enhanced if therapists have ongoing information on how their client or the relationship is progressing. In this innovative research by Bar-Kalifa and colleagues, the authors studied 77 therapists who saw a total of 384 clients. The therapists were experienced at providing cognitive-behavioral therapy. Clients for the most part had a depressive or anxiety disorder and were seen for an average of 36 sessions. Client outcomes were measured pre- and post-treatment. Emotional and psychological functioning during the past week was rated by the client before each session, and the same measure was given to the therapist to rate their client at the end of each session. After therapists made their rating, they were given ongoing feedback (i.e., progress monitoring) about how their clients’ rated their own functioning during the past week. Did clients and therapists agree on level of client functioning, was this agreement stable over time, and was this agreement or disagreement related to client outcomes? The authors used sophisticated statistical modeling to separate the effects of client ratings of their functioning from therapists’ ratings, and to examine the impact of the changing relationship between therapist and client ratings over time on client outcomes. The authors found little difference in the level of client and therapist ratings of client functioning, and they found that therapists tended to be accurate (i.e., congruent with clients) in tracking client functioning over time. More importantly, the ability of therapists to accurately track client functioning from session to session was related to better client outcomes in terms of key symptoms of depression and anxiety.

Practice Implications

The ability of therapists to accurately track client functioning over time was related to better client outcomes. This means that therapists who were aware of their clients’ functioning through feedback methods were better equipped to help their clients. In particular, information about how client functioning was changing from session to session might have allowed therapists to take corrective action for clients who were not doing well from one session to another. This information might have allowed therapists to reconsider a treatment formulation for a particular client, for example. Therapists should be aware of how a client is doing at a particular session, but more importantly therapists should be sensitive to fluctuations in client functioning across sessions. This might be best achieved with ongoing progress monitoring.

McAleavey, A.A., Castonguay, L.G., & Goldfried, M.R. (2014). Clinical experiences in conducting cognitive-behavioral therapy for social phobia. Behavior Therapy, 45, 21-35.

It might come as a surprise to some that social phobia (also called social anxiety disorder) is the most commonly diagnosed anxiety disorder, with a lifetime prevalence of about 12%. Symptoms include negative self-view, fear of embarrassment or criticism, and fear and/or avoidance of social situations. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for social phobia with effects as large as pharmacotherapies. Despite this, there are several potential barriers to implementing CBT for social phobia in clinical practice. CBT involves exposure to feared situations (in vivo or simulated), identifying and altering maladaptive thoughts during exposure, producing testable hypotheses, and identifying cognitive errors.  CBT is not uniformly effective for all patients with social phobia, exposure techniques are linked to dropping out and failure to initiate treatment, and there can be an increase in missed sessions and non-completion of homework related to avoidance. In this study, McAleavy and colleagues surveyed 276 psychotherapists who provided CBT for social phobia to assess problems or barriers clinicians encountered when applying CBT in practice. Possible barriers listed in the survey were derived from extensive interviews with experts who developed and researched CBT interventions for anxiety disorders. Survey respondents were mostly Ph.D. level clinical psychologists (59%), women (61%), who practiced in outpatient clinics or private practice, and had on average 12 years of post-degree experience. Many therapists reported using behavioral interventions, including developing a fear/avoidance hierarchy, in-session exposures, focusing on behavior in social situations, and specifically focusing on behavioral avoidance. Most also used cognitive homework (i.e., interventions focused on exploring or altering attributions or cognitions).  The most frequent therapist endorsed barriers to implementing CBT for social phobia included: patient symptoms (i.e., severity, chronicity, and poor social skills); other patient characteristics (i.e., resistance to directiveness of treatment, inability to work independently between sessions, avoidant personality disorder, limited premorbid functioning, poor interpersonal skills, depressed mood); patient expectations (i.e., that therapist will do all the work; pessimism regarding therapy); patient specific beliefs (i.e., belief that fears are realistic, or that social anxiety is part of their personality); patient motivation (i.e., premature termination, attribution that gains are due to medications); and patient social system (i.e., social system endorses dependency, social isolation). A minority of CBT therapists endorsed a weak therapeutic alliance or aspects of the CBT intervention itself as posing a barrier.

Practice Implications

CBT therapists identified a number of barriers, mainly patient related, that might impede the implementation of CBT for social phobia. Given these barriers the authors suggested that therapists: (1) consider more intense, longer, or more specific treatments for more severe cases; (2) incorporate assessment of patient severity to guide decisions; (3) consider tailoring the level of treatment directiveness based on patient characteristics – i.e., more resistant patients may require a less directive approach and more control over the type and pace of interventions; (4) prepare patients on what to expect in the treatment before therapy begins; (5) find a balance between validating/accepting patients’ problematic beliefs that their fears might be realistic with encouragement to change; (6) add motivational interviewing for patients who are less motivated; (6) complete a thorough functional analysis of patients’ social systems at the start of therapy. McAleavey and colleagues noted that while therapeutic alliance difficulties was an infrequently endorsed barrier by therapists, such difficulties remain clinically important, especially in light of findings that indicate that negative reactions to patients are under-reported by therapists. Developing and maintaining a good alliance remains a key aspect of CBT for panic disorder.