Blog

Levitt, H.M., Pomerville, A., & Surace, F.I. (2016). A qualitative meta-analysis examining clients’ experiences in psychotherapy: A new agenda. Psychological Bulletin. Online First Publication, April 28, 2016.

Much of psychotherapy research over the past several decades has focused on therapy outcomes, with the general conclusion that outcomes are equivalent across major psychotherapy orientations. Some of the effects of psychotherapy can be explained by relational factors (e.g., therapeutic alliance). There is also a growing and interesting line of research about therapist variables and therapist effects (see this month’s PPRNet blog on differences between therapists’ outcomes in a large UK sample). Many experts argue that client effects and characteristics account for the largest amount of variance in therapy outcomes. That is, who clients are and what experiences they have are the largest determinants of whether psychotherapy will be helpful. However the client’s experience is often neglected in psychotherapy research reviews. Levitt and colleagues conducted a qualitative meta analysis of qualitative studies of clients’ experiences in psychotherapy. Qualitative research typically involves interviewing clients about their experiences in therapy and coding the transcripts of these interviews. Methods of synthesizing and categorizing themes from client narratives, such as the grounded theory method and thematic analysis, create a rich source of understanding about how clients experience change in psychotherapy. Levitt and colleagues applied qualitative methods to synthesize 109 qualitative studies of over 1400 clients as a way of analysing this research. Six clusters or themes emerged from their qualitative meta analysis: (1) clients experienced therapy as a process of identifying and understanding personal patterns; (2) clients who felt understood and had their experiences validated were able to internalize the therapist’s voice; (3) clients experienced the structure of therapy (spacing of sessions and time allotted to sessions) and therapist expertise as generating credibility for the therapy, but also at times the structure reduced clients’ experience of therapeutic relationship’s authenticity; (4) clients experienced an inherent power differential with therapists that was sometimes compounded by differences in race, gender, and class; (5) clients played a major role in the therapeutic process, and clients felt pleased when they were invited to take the lead; (6) clients’ experiences of being cared-for supported their ability to recognize maladaptive patterns and address unmet vulnerable needs.

Practice Implications

This qualitative meta analysis highlights the important role played by the client’s experience and by the therapy context in promoting good outcomes. The results suggested that better outcomes may be achieved when: (1) therapists encourage clients’ curiosity about their cognitive, emotional and relational patterns; (2) therapists engage in an accepting and caring relationship in order to help clients decrease their defensiveness about vulnerable topics; (3) therapists maintain the therapeutic structure in order to increase clients’ sense of confidence in the process; (4) therapists explicitly acknowledge power differences and repair alliance ruptures; (5) therapists encourage clients to take an active role in therapy as a means of self-healing; and (6) therapists regularly check with clients about the fit of interventions, in-session needs, and treatment goals.

Xu, H. & Tracey, T.J.G. (2016). Cultural congruence with psychotherapy efficacy: A network meta-analytic examination in China. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 359-365.

Cultural congruence refers to providing psychotherapy that is consistent with the client’s cultural context in its description of the etiology of symptoms and in its therapeutic procedures. In general, congruence of treatments with clients’ expectation, preferences, and beliefs is related to greater psychotherapy efficacy. And specifically identifying culturally appropriate or adapted treatments is important because this is often related to better therapy outcomes for ethnic and racial minorities. Psychotherapy as a professional practice developed recently in China. Cognitive-behavioral, existential-humanistic, and psychodynamic therapies have taken their place along side indigenous therapies including Naikan therapy, Taoism cognitive therapy, and Morita therapy. Historically in China mental health problems were seen as a disturbance in ying-yang or a sin committed in a previous life. Healing practices included engaging in altruism or religious practices to achieve redemption. Xu and Tracey argue that Chinese culture strongly endorses an experiential and subjective orientation and is less aligned with analytic and objective orientations. Using this understanding, the authors expected that experiential-humanistic and indigenous therapies would be more congruent and therefore more effective than cognitive-behavioral education or psychodynamic therapy in alleviating mental health issues. In this meta analysis, Xu and Tracey reported on 235 studies conducted in China that compared the various treatments to a control condition or to each other. There were too few studies of psychodynamic therapy, so it was not included in the analyses. All treatments were effective compared to a control condition with large effect sizes (g = .85 to 1.18). However, whereas experiential-humanistic and indigenous therapies were equally effective, each was significantly more effective (g = .34) than cognitive-behavioral psychoeducation.

Practice Implications

The three modalities, experiential-humanistic, indigenous, and cognitive-behavioral psychoeducation were effective. However the two therapies that were more experiential and subjective in nature were more effective to reduce Chinese clients’ symptoms. When working with Chinese clients, therapists may achieve better outcomes if they work on more experiential components (e.g., feelings and therapeutic relationship) and focus on subjective experiences (e.g., introspection and reflection). The results of the meta analysis suggest that when working with Chinese clients interpersonal processes and emotions should be the clinical focus and take priority over dysfunctional cognitions and psychoeducation.

Wampold, B. E. (2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry, 14, 270-277.

What is the evidence for the common factors in psychotherapy and how important are they to patient outcomes? In their landmark book, The Great Psychotherapy Debate, Wampold and Imel cover this ground is some detail, and I reviewed a number of the issues raised in their book in the PPRNet blog over the past year. This article by Wampold provides a condensed summary of the research evidence for the common factors in psychotherapy, including: therapeutic alliance, therapist empathy, client expectations, cultural adaptation of treatments, and therapist effects. Therapeutic alliance refers to therapist and client agreement on tasks and goals of therapy, and the bond between therapist and client. A meta-analysis of the therapeutic alliance included over 200 studies of 14,000 patients and found a medium effect of alliance on patient outcomes (d = .57) across a variety of disorders and therapeutic orientations. A number of studies are also concluding that the alliance consistently predicts good outcomes, but that early good outcomes do not consistently predict a subsequent higher alliance. Further, therapists and not patients were primarily responsible for the alliance-outcome relationship. Another common factor, empathy, is thought to be necessary for cooperation, goal sharing, and social interactions. A meta-analysis of therapist empathy that included 59 studies and over 3,500 patients found that the relationship between empathy and patient outcome was moderately large (d = .63). Patient expectations that they will receive benefit from a structured therapy that explains their symptoms can be quite powerful in increasing hope for relief. A meta-analysis of 46 studies found a small but statistically significant relationship (d = .24) between client expectations and outcome. Cultural adaptation of treatments refers to providing an explanation of the symptoms and treatment that are acceptable to the client in the context of their culture. A meta analysis of 21 studies found that cultural adaptation of evidence-based treatments by using an explanation congruent with the client’s culture was more effective than unadapted evidence-based treatments, and the effect was modest (d = .32). Finally, therapist effects, refers to some therapists consistently achieving better outcomes than other therapists regardless of the patients’ characteristics or treatments delivered. A meta analysis of 17 studies of therapist effects in naturalistic settings found a moderately large effect of therapist differences (d = .55).

Practice Implications

These common factors of psychotherapy appear to be more important to patient outcomes than therapist adherence to a specific protocol and therapist competence in delivering the protocol. As Wampold argues, therapist competence should be redefined as the therapist’s ability to form stronger alliances across a variety of patients. Effective therapists tend to have certain qualities, including: a higher level of facilitative interpersonal skills, a tendency to express more professional self doubt, and they engage in more time outside of therapy practicing various psychotherapy skills.

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

The conduct of psychotherapy trials almost always requires that therapists be adherent and competent in delivering a manualized therapy intervention. Treatment adherence usually refers to the extent to which a therapist used the intervention prescribed by a treatment manual. Therapist competence refers specifically to a therapist’s skill in delivering the therapy. So “competence” in the context of psychotherapy research typically refers only to performing a certain type of treatment. Wampold and Imel argue that these definitions are consistent with a Medical Model of psychotherapy that emphasizes delivering specific active ingredients of a treatment. The Contextual Model of psychotherapy, on the other hand might define a therapist as competent to the extent that the therapist is interpersonally skilled, empathic, and able to engage clients in the actions of the therapy. Wampold and Imel report on a meta analysis of 28 studies conducted by Webb and colleagues (2010) who found a small and non-significant relationship between therapist adherence and patient outcomes (r = .02), and a small and non-significant relationship between therapist competence and patient outcomes (r = .07). Type of treatment (e.g., CBT, IPT, dynamic) did not affect these associations – in other words adherence and competence were not more important to CBT than to other treatments. However, competence seemed to be more important for the treatment of depression (r = .28). Perhaps depression responds better to specific techniques. The finding that competence was generally not related to outcomes was surprising, however generally competence is narrowly defined as how well a therapist delivered the treatment not how well the therapist was able to establish a therapeutic context. Previous researchers concluded that when clients liked working with a therapist, clients got better, and therapists were rated as more competent as a result. A number of studies appear to indicate that therapist competence is really a function of the client’s characteristics not to what the therapist does. For example, clients with more severe personality problems could make a therapist appear less competent, and these clients may have poorer outcomes. If this is the case, it would create a paradoxical situation in which therapists’ appearance of competence (i.e., ability to deliver a manualized intervention well) is largely determined by the client and not by the therapist.

Practice Implications

In contrast to the findings about adherence and competence, the therapeutic alliance is robustly related to patient outcomes. Also in contrast, the size of the alliance-outcome relationship is almost entirely due to the skills of the therapist, not the client’s characteristics. In other words, therapist competence is not a matter of whether they can do a good job of following a manual, but rather therapist competence is likely a matter of creating the right conditions (i.e., interpersonal skill, alliance, empathy, etc.) for delivering evidence-based interventions by which many clients improve. However, some therapists are better at these facilitative interpersonal skills than others.

Farrell, N.R. & Deacon, B.J. (2015). The relative importance of relational and scientific characteristics of psychotherapy: Perceptions of community members vs. therapists. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.08.004

The American Psychological Association defines evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychotherapy as based on: (a) research evidence, (b) clinical expertise, and (c) client characteristics and preferences. We know for example, that clients who receive their preferred treatments better engage with therapy, drop out at a lower rate, and achieve better symptom outcomes. However, we know very little about clients’ preferences for the relative importance of the therapeutic relationship with an empathic therapist versus the scientific merit of the treatment they receive. We do know that therapists generally prefer research on the therapeutic relationship, and that therapists may place greater value on relationship issues versus research support for the treatments they provide. In this study Farrell and Deacon sample 200 members of the community about the relative importance of the relationship with a therapist versus the scientific basis of the treatment. The authors also surveyed a similar number of therapists about what therapists thought clients would prefer (relationship vs research evidence) in psychotherapy. Not surprisingly, community members rated both the therapeutic relationship and research evidence highly when indicating what they preferred should they receive psychotherapy. However, the authors found that members of the community rated the therapeutic relationship much more highly than they rated research evidence (d = 1.24). But the difference shrank (d = .24) when it came to treating panic disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder. Therapists tended to under-estimate the importance of community members’ preferences for scientific evidence for psychotherapy. The under-estimation was greater for therapists who placed less value on research. In other words, therapists who valued research less in their own practice were more likely to underestimate the importance of scientific credibility to members of the general public.

Practice Implications

This is by no means a perfect study. As readers of this blog know, I prefer to write about meta analyses, which are much more reliable than findings from a single study. However, it is quite rare to have a study on a large sample of members of the community, let alone one that asks about their perceptions and preferences about psychotherapy. The findings from this study suggest that members of the community highly value the therapeutic relationship and factors like therapist empathy. However, members of the community also place much faith in the scientific evidence that supports the use of psychotherapy. The preference for both a good therapeutic relationship coupled with research evidence may be very important to most people who may seek therapy. Therapists, particularly those who place less weight on research, should keep in mind that clients value the scientific evidence for psychotherapy.

Author email: bdeacon@uow.edu.au

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Since in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books.

Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2^nd edition). New York: Routledge.

In this part of the book, Wampold and Imel reviewed the research literature on the therapeutic alliance. The therapeutic alliance is considered a pan-theoretical construct that is critical to the success of all psychotherapies. Alliance is defined as the: (a) agreement on the goals of therapy, (b) agreement on the tasks of therapy, and (c) the bond between therapist and client. Numerous meta analyses across several decades demonstrate a robust relationship between the alliance and therapy outcome. For example, Horvath and colleagues (2011) conducted a meta analysis with 190 studies that included over 14, 000 clients in which the average effect size was r = .28, indicating a moderate and significant association between alliance and outcomes. Some researchers argued that this is an under-estimation of the alliance outcome relationship. In Horvath and colleagues’ meta analysis, they found no difference between type of psychotherapy (CBT, interpersonal, dynamic) and the alliance – outcome relationship. However, the alliance may work differently in some therapies. For example, in CBT there is some evidence that the collaborative bond is not related to outcomes, but rather the agreement on tasks and goals is related to patient outcomes. This highlights that an alliance cannot happen without techniques; in other words, if techniques fail to engage the patient in the work of therapy, then the technique is not working properly. Wampold and Imel also reviewed the research on whether the therapist or the patient is most influential in developing an alliance. Using sophisticated statistical techniques, they were able to disentangle the effects of therapists and clients. More effective therapists were those who had stronger alliances with patients, and their patients had better outcomes. However, the patient’s contributions to developing an alliance were not significant. Finally, Wampold and Imel reviewed the research on whether early alliance causes good outcomes, or whether early outcomes causes a good alliance. If the latter were true, then the therapeutic alliance would simply be an artifact of early improvement – that is, the alliance would not be necessary for patients to improve. Most of the studies, which were conducted by researchers of different theoretical orientations, concluded that early alliance predicts outcomes and not the other way around. There is some evidence that change in the alliance and change in symptoms have a reciprocal impact – as the alliance grows the patient subsequently improves and as the patient improves the alliance subsequently grows.

Practice Implications

Clearly, developing and maintaining a therapeutic alliance is important to achieving good patient outcomes in psychotherapy. The alliance is not independent from techniques of psychotherapy. In other words, therapists and clients have to agree on the tasks and goals of treatment, and this agreement is fundamental to all treatment modalities offered to patients. If there is no agreement, then therapists have to consider changing course or discussing with the client ways of achieving an agreement. Over and above that, therapists and clients must have some interpersonal bond that is likely underpinned by the therapist’s empathy, positive regard, and concern for the client. The research is clear that it is the therapist who most strongly contributes to the development of an alliance, and so it is the therapist’s responsibility to nurture a positive working alliance.