Blog

Dickeson, E., Roberts, R., & Smout, M.F. (2020). Predicting boundary violation propensity among mental health professionals. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Online First Publication: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2465.

Boundaries of the therapeutic relationship define the role and limits of therapist behaviors, and the limits of their relationship with clients. Violations of therapy boundaries might include sexual contact, which by some estimates occurs in 0.5% to 8.6% of therapists. Other boundary violations might include a broader range of behaviors such as therapists initiating hugs, forming a social relationship with a client, flirting, and consuming alcohol with a client. A number of years ago, Gabbard developed a typology of practitioners who committed boundary violations that included: the predatory therapist, the masochistic therapist, and the lovesick therapist. Despite the widespread use of this typology, there was little research on its validity or utility. Dickeson and colleagues conducted a survey of 275 Australian practitioners (psychologists, psychiatrists, psychotherapists, and social workers, 73% women) about their behaviors related to professional boundaries and also personality traits. The goal was to evaluate if therapist variables suggested by Gabbard were related to the likelihood of crossing a professional boundary. Over 30% of the therapists in their sample reported some kind of boundary violation with clients, with 0.7% indicating they had sex with a client. Male gender (r = .147–.255), experiential avoidance (r = .144–.230), narcissistic grandiosity (r = .334–.402), narcissistic vulnerability (r = .258–.331), and impulsivity (r = .196–.262) were the most consistent predictors of some propensity to commit a boundary violation among therapists. There was no evidence that age or working in a solo practice setting were related to propensity to professional boundary violations.

Practice Implications

Gabbard’s typology for therapists who engage in boundary violations were supported to some extent. The predatory therapist type was supported by findings related to narcissistic grandiosity and impulsivity. Such therapists may seek personal gratification by exploiting clients. There was also some evidence for the masochistic therapist type as seen by significant correlations with narcissistic vulnerability and experiential avoidance. Such practitioners might extend themselves beyond the limits of professional conduct in a misguided belief that only they can help the client. There is a general consensus in the profession that boundary violations are detrimental to clients. This research suggests that therapists with narcissistic issues might be more likely to transgress professional boundaries. Personal therapy, close supervision, and ongoing professional consultation may be helpful for therapists who feel that they at risk of a professional boundary transgression.

Predicting Which Psychotherapists Will Adopt Telepsychology

Pierce, B. S., Perrin, P. B., & McDonald, S. D. (2020). Demographic, organizational, and clinical practice predictors of U.S. psychologists’ use of telepsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 51(2), 184–193.

Even prior to COVID-19, psychologists and psychotherapists were examining the use of telepsychology (telephone delivered psychotherapy and assessment). The interest arose from efforts to increase accessibility to psychological services for clients in rural and remote areas, and also for those for whom travelling to an urban centre was a significant barrier due to disability. However, there are barriers to psychotherapists’ use of telepsychology caused by: differing state and provincial laws and requirements, limits to working across state and provincial jurisdictions, issues related to insurance reimbursement, and concern that telepsychology and video conferencing platforms may not meet Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or Personal Health Information Privacy and Access (PHIPA) requirements for confidentiality and privacy. In a previous study, close to 80% of psychologists felt that telepsychology could be effective, but 42% viewed telepsychology as less effective than face-to-face therapy, and 75% indicated that they would not likely refer to someone for telepsychology services. In this large survey of almost 1800 psychologists who practiced psychotherapy, Pierce and colleagues were interested in demographic, organizational, and clinical factors that predicted telepsychology-use by clinicians. The participants were 8.74 times more likely to use telepsychology if they worked in organizations that had policies supporting telepsychology-use compared to those who worked in organizations without such policies (p < .001). Nevertheless, psychologists in private practices were 2.86 times more likely to use telepsychology than those who worked in institutions. Also, psychologists who received training in telepsychology were 2.25 times more likely to use telepsychology than those who did not receive any training (p = .002). In terms of clinical practice areas, those who worked in sports performance, coaching, addictions, and parenting were more likely to use telepsychology. On the other hand, those who provided testing and evaluations were less likely to use telepsychology, likely because of practical limitations to psychometric testing online. Age and gender were not related to telepsychology use.

Practice Implications

Psychologists and psychotherapists who want to increase their comfort and satisfaction in working with telepsychology should consider getting professional development training and continuing education. In one study, over two thirds or psychologists perceived that they did not have sufficient training to use telepsychology. Organizations who want to encourage telepsychology should invest in training and provide clear policy guidelines to support professionals. The notion that older clinicians would be less likely to use telepsychology was not born out by these findings.

Imel, Z. E., Pace, B. T., Soma, C. S., Tanana, M., Hirsch, T., Gibson, J., Georgiou, P., Narayanan, S., & Atkins, D. C. (2019). Design feasibility of an automated, machine-learning based feedback system for motivational interviewing. Psychotherapy, 56(2), 318–328.

I do not mean to conjure up the image of a dystopian future, but I could not resist the pithy title for this blog. Ideally, psychotherapists in training or those who seek professional development would receive high quality accurate feedback about their behavior (e.g., about interpersonal skills, empathy, vocal tone, body language) and competence (e.g., regarding specific interventions) in real time. This would allow psychotherapists and trainees can make fine-tuned adjustments to their behaviors and interventions that match or complement the specific patient with which they are working. But, given the current technology, this is impossible. Instead psychotherapy training and feedback to practicing clinicians is slow, cumbersome, and imprecise. Current supervision and consultation practices rely on giving feedback based on the clinician’s verbal case report or, at best, based on viewing video recordings. There are systems that provide feedback on patient outcomes that may alert psychotherapists to something going amiss in for the patient. But such feedback occurs post-session, is based on patient self-report, and does not inform immediate in-session therapist behaviors. In this study, Imel and colleagues evaluated an initial proof of concept of an automated feedback system that generated quality metrics about specific therapist interventions and about therapist skills like empathy. They used computer technology based on natural language processing to take conversational data from video of psychotherapy sessions in order to answer questions like: “what did the therapist and patient talk about during the session?”, “how empathic was the therapist?”, and “how often did the therapist use reflections versus closed questions in the session?” The authors developed a machine learning tool to transcribe, code, and rapidly generate feedback to 21 experienced and novice therapists who recorded a 10-minute session with a standardized patient (a standardized patient is an actor who loosely follows a script). The machine learning technology was accurate at defining or coding a “closed question” by a therapist (e.g., a question with a yes/no answer; inter rater agreement with a human coder ICC = .80), but not as accurate at defining or coding a therapist empathic statement (inter rater agreement with a human coder ICC = .23). The system provided immediate feedback the therapists about their behaviors during the session using graphics and text (fidelity to specific interventions, counseling style, empathy, percent open/closed questions, percent reflections). All therapists rated the tool as “easy to use”, 86% strongly agreed that the feedback was representative of their performance, 90% agreed that if the tool was available, they would use it in their clinical practice.

Practice Implications

Typically, professional consultation or supervision involves a consultant giving the therapist feedback based on imprecise descriptions of events in a therapy session that occurred at some point in the recent past. This method of training and consultation in psychotherapy has not changed much in the past 60 years. One key drawback of current methods of training and consultation is that they do not make use of real-time feedback to help therapist adjust behaviors to the specific patient or context. It is possible that in the near future with rapid advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning a therapist will be able to finish a session with a patient and receive an immediate feedback report about the previous hour. The feedback might include metrics on empathy, the percent of questions vs reflections, competence in specific interventions, among other personalize ratings. This future might also have novice trainees receive immediate real-time in-session feedback about behaviors of interest that need to be adjusted, or for which more training is necessary. For some, this might be a vision of a dystopian future, for others it may represent a way forward in which therapists achieve more refined skills and better patient outcomes.

Owen, J., Tao, K. W., Imel, Z. E., Wampold, B. E., & Rodolfa, E. (2014). Addressing racial and ethnic microaggressions in therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 283–290.

Overt forms of racism and prejudice still occur in society, and less overt forms are likely more prevalent. Microaggression are those less overt forms of racism and prejudice that may include direct and indirect insults, slights, and discriminatory messages. Specific types of microaggression are: microinvalidations (e.g., denying that racism exists), microassaults (e.g., direct racism but done in private), and microinsults (e.g., believing a group’s cultural norms are pathological). Microaggression are by definition ambiguous and subtle, and they may target culture, race, gender, sexual orientation, and other group identities. Microaggressions are associated with psychological distress in the recipient. Microaggressions can also occur in therapy if a patient perceives a therapist’s dismissing or negating messages about the patient’s culture, or if a therapist engages in culturally inappropriate interventions. Microaggressions represent a special type of therapeutic alliance rupture that could lead to negative patient outcomes. It is also possible that therapists and clients who address microaggressions after they occur are capable of repairing the alliance rupture and moving forward with a stronger relationship. However, there is very little research of the impact of client perceived microaggressions on the therapeutic alliance. In this unique study, Owen and colleagues asked 120 racial and ethnic minority university counselling centre patients treated by 33 different therapists (23 of whom were White) to rate their experience microaggressions, to indicate if the microaggression was discussed, and to rate the therapeutic alliance. In total, 53.3% of patients experienced a microaggression in therapy, and of those patients, 68.4% were treated by a racial or ethnic minority therapist. Clients who reported fewer microaggressions also reported stronger therapeutic alliances (r = .28, p = .01). Of the patients who reported a microaggression, only 24% (13 patients) reported that the microaggression was discussed by the therapist. Of these 13 patients, almost all (12 patients) reported that the discussion was successful. Therapist and patient dyads who successfully discussed the microaggression: (1) had alliance scores comparable to patients who did not experience a microaggression, and (2) had alliance scores that were significantly higher than dyads who experienced but did not discuss the microaggression.

Practice Implications

Microaggressions appear to be ubiquitous in daily life and in psychotherapy – no therapist is immune. More than 53% of patients in this study reported a microaggression, despite what was likely their therapists’ good intentions. Microaggression are a special case of therapeutic alliance ruptures, which are known to be associated with poor patient outcomes. Therapists must develop a strong multicultural orientation and take a culturally humble stance with clients from a different culture or group. This involves therapists being attuned to the possibility of committing a microaggression, inviting patients to alert the therapist should a microaggression occur, and being open to clarifying misunderstandings and owning missteps.

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., & Pinto-Coelho, K. G. (2018). Therapist self-disclosure and immediacy: A qualitative meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 445-460.

Different writers and theorists in psychotherapy have disagreed on the need for or the wisdom of therapists disclosing about themselves during therapy. Recently, however, both humanistic therapists and some psychodynamic therapists tend to see therapist self-disclosure or immediate discussion of the therapeutic relationship more positively. Therapist self-disclosure is a therapist statement that reveals something personal about the therapist (“That makes me angry too”). On the other hand, immediacy refers to comments about and processing the therapeutic relationship by client and therapist in the here and now (“You said that people inevitably let you down, I wonder if you expect that I will let you down too”). Immediacy, also known as metacommunication, is particularly useful to address therapeutic alliance ruptures. In this qualitative meta-analysis, Hill and colleagues (2018) examined research that studied the effects of therapist disclosures and immediacy on subsequent client processes right after the disclosure or immediacy occurred. The authors included in their review 21 studies with a total sample of 184 cases. Five studies with 99 cases looked specifically at the effect of therapist disclosure. Therapist self-disclosure occurred relatively infrequently in 0% to 4% of all therapist responses. The most frequently occurring subsequent processes after therapist disclosure included an enhanced therapy relationship (reported in 64% of studies), greater client insight (reported in 46% of studies), and improved client mental health (reported in 45% of studies). Negative effects of therapist disclosure included negative client feelings or reactions (reported in 30% of studies) and impaired therapeutic relationship (reported in 16% of studies). Fifteen studies with 78 cases looked specifically at immediacy. Therapists used immediacy more extensively in between 12% to 38% of cases. The most frequently occurring subsequent processes following immediacy included an enhanced therapy relationship (reported in 40% of studies), and increased client self-disclosure (reported in 40% of studies). Negative effects of immediacy included a negative impact for the therapist (reported in 11% of studies) that referred to a heightened sense of therapist vulnerability.

Practice Implications

Reviews and theoretical guidelines stress that therapists should sparingly and deliberately use self-disclosure and immediacy. In fact, this review by Hill and colleagues indicated that therapist self-disclosure is relatively rare, whereas immediacy might be more common. Therapists might consider self-disclosure when the client is feeling alone and in need of support. But, as Hill and colleagues indicate, therapists must be thoughtful and strategic about self-disclosure, therapists should disclose only personally resolved material, and therapists must focus their disclosures exclusively on the client’s needs. On the other hand, immediacy may be a useful strategy to negotiate and address problems in the therapeutic relationship by talking about interactions and intentions in the relationship (i.e., metacommunicate about the relationship). Therapists have to consider that immediacy may require lengthy processing, and therapists should be attentive to the role of countertransference and seek consultation in order to be sure to act in the best interest of the client.

Author email: cehill@umd.edu

Fonagy, P., Lemma, A., Target, M., O'Keeffe, S., Constantinou, M., Ventura Wurman, T., . . . Pilling, S. (2019). Dynamic interpersonal therapy for moderate to severe depression: A pilot randomized controlled and feasibility trial. Psychological Medicine, 1-10. Online first publication. doi:10.1017/S0033291719000928

Most psychotherapies are equally effective when it comes to treating depression. However, no single therapy is uniformly effective, so that about 50% of patients might improve when it comes to symptom reduction. So, although there is a large evidence base for treatments like CBT, therapists and patients need access to a range of available treatments. There is less research on psychodynamic therapies, although a number of trials and meta-analyses indicate their effectiveness to treat depression. In the United Kingdom (UK), the health system may offer a stepped care program that provides patients with low intensity guided self-help based on a CBT model followed by more intensive treatment with CBT or IPT if patients did not benefit from self-help. The UK health system rarely offers Dynamic Interpersonal Therapy (DIT), and DIT has never been studied in a randomized controlled trial within the UK health system. Fonagy and colleagues designed this randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of DIT when compared to the CBT-oriented self-help program as offered in the UK. The study also included a smaller randomized sample of those who received the intensive version of CBT for depression. In total, 147 participants with moderate to severe depression were randomly assigned to DIT, CBT guided self-help, or the intensive version of CBT. The DIT is informed by attachment theory and by mentalization theory, and it views depressive symptoms as responses to interpersonal difficulties or perceived attachment threats. The results of the trial showed a significantly greater effect of DIT compared to guided self-help with regard to depressive symptoms, overall symptom severity, social functioning, and quality of life at post-treatment. The patients receiving DIT maintained these gains up to 1-year post-treatment. Over half of DIT patients showed clinically significant improvements, but only 9% who received the CBT-based guided self-help achieved such improvement. There were no significant differences on any of the outcomes between DIT and the more intensive version of CBT.

Practice Implications

One of the benefits of DIT, according to the authors, is that it offers a treatment manual and curriculum that enables those without a lot of background in psychodynamic therapies to deliver it. This makes DIT potentially widely-applicable in publicly funded health systems like in the UK, Canada, and others. DIT may offer yet another effective option of psychotherapy to therapists and their patients who experience depressive symptoms. The study also points to the limits of offering only guided self-help to those with moderate to severe depression.

Author email: p.fonagy@ucl.ac.uk