Blog
The Psychotherapy Practice Research Network (PPRNet) blog began in 2013 in response to psychotherapy clinicians, researchers, and educators who expressed interest in receiving regular information about current practice-oriented psychotherapy research. It offers a monthly summary of two or three published psychotherapy research articles. Each summary is authored by Dr. Tasca and highlights practice implications of selected articles. Past blogs are available in the archives. This content is only available in English.
This month...
…I blog about how the therapeutic alliance works, psychotherapy with Indigenous Peoples, and th efficacy of psychotherapy and psychopharmacology
Type of Research
Topics
- ALL Topics (clear)
- Adherance
- Alliance and Therapeutic Relationship
- Anxiety Disorders
- Attachment
- Attendance, Attrition, and Drop-Out
- Client Factors
- Client Preferences
- Cognitive Therapy (CT) and Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT)
- Combination Therapy
- Common Factors
- Cost-effectiveness
- Depression and Depressive Symptoms
- Efficacy of Treatments
- Empathy
- Feedback and Progress Monitoring
- Group Psychotherapy
- Illness and Medical Comorbidities
- Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT)
- Long-term Outcomes
- Medications/Pharmacotherapy
- Miscellaneous
- Neuroscience and Brain
- Outcomes and Deterioration
- Personality Disorders
- Placebo Effect
- Practice-Based Research and Practice Research Networks
- Psychodynamic Therapy (PDT)
- Resistance and Reactance
- Self-Reflection and Awareness
- Suicide and Crisis Intervention
- Termination
- Therapist Factors
- Training
- Transference and Countertransference
- Trauma and/or PTSD
- Treatment Length and Frequency
July 2017
Are the Effects of Psychotherapy Inflated?
Driessen, E., Hollon, S.D., Bockting, C.L.H., Cuijpers, P., Turner, E.H. (2015). Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health-funded trials. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0137864. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137864.
In 2008 Turner published a well-known study in which he found that almost 50% of antidepressant trials registered with the Food and Drug Administration in the US were never published or were positively “spun” (i.e., essentially negative findings were interpreted to be positive). Almost all of the unpublished trials showed unfavorable results for the antidepressants’ effects. By contrast, the published studies were almost always were positive. This is evidence of publication bias caused by selective publication of some data and suppression of other data. As you can imagine, this has important implications for treatment of depression as the published record appeared to over-inflate effects of antidepressants by 25% (the mean effect size decreased from g = .41 [CI95% 0.36~0.45] to 0.31 [0.27~0.35] when unpublished studies were included). Has the same type of publication bias occurred in the published record of psychotherapy’s efficacy? In this study by Driessen and colleagues, the authors reviewed all psychotherapy studies for depression funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health in the US between 1972 and 2008. They wanted to determine which ones were published, which were never published, and what the impact of nonpublication was on the mean effect size. Of the 55 grants that were funded, 13 (26.3%) were never published, and the authors were able to obtain data from 11 of those unpublished studies. The overall mean effect size (psychological treatment versus a control condition) of unpublished studies was g = 0.20 (CI95% -0.11~0.51) indicating a small non-significant effect. The overall mean effect size for published studies was g = 0.52 (CI95% 0.37~0.68) indicating a medium significant effect. Adding the unpublished studies to published studies resulted in a 25% decrease in effect size estimate to g = 0.39 (0.08~0.70), indicating a small but significant effect of psychotherapy.
Practice Implications
This study indicated that psychotherapy is effective but that the effects are likely smaller than indicated in the published record. As in the case of antidepressant medication research, a minority of researchers may not publish findings that are not in line with their preconceived expectations or wished-for results. Regardless, there is certainly room for psychotherapy to improve. After decades of focusing largely on the efficacy of specific psychotherapies like CBT, psychodynamic therapies, and interpersonal therapy, perhaps it is time to shift to studying how and why therapies work, and which patients benefit from specific interventions. There are promising avenues such as research on: repairing therapeutic alliance tensions, enhancing therapist expertise, progress monitoring and feedback, client factors, and managing countertransference.
February 2017
The Importance of Psychosocial Factors in Mental Health Treatment
Greenberg, R.P. (2016). The rebirth of psychosocial importance in a drug-filled world. American Psychologist, 71, 781-791.
In this thoughtful piece, Greenberg reviews the research on psychosocial factors that affect mental health treatment outcomes – including for medications and in psychotherapy. There has been an important shift in the last few decades to view mental disorders, including depression, as biologically based. For example, surveys indicate that the public’s belief in biological causes of mental illness rose from 77% to 88% during a 10 year period. During the same period the belief in the primacy of biological treatment for mental disorders rose from 48% to 60%. Further, 20% of women and 15% of men in the US are currently taking antidepressant medications. Some of these trends are due to direct to consumer marketing of medications by the pharmaceutical industry, which saw a 300% increase in sales in antidepressants. Some of these trends are also due to Federal agencies like the National Institute of Mental Health that vigorously pursued an agenda of biological research. But what is the evidence for a purely biological view of mental health? Greenberg notes that the evidence is poor. For example, no one has been able to demonstrate that a chemical imbalance actually exists to explain depressive symptoms – which undermines the reason for using medications to treat depression. Further, research on the efficacy of antidepressant medications shows that they perform only slightly better than a placebo pill, prompting a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine to declare that this difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. The placebo effect is essentially a psychosocial effect. It refers to: the patient’s experience of a caring relationship with a credible professional, and the patient’s expectations and hopes of getting better. Placebo is a very real phenomenon that also has an impact on purely medical interventions like surgeries. In psychotherapy trials, relational/contextual factors like therapeutic alliance, expectations, therapist empathy, and countertransference likely account for more of the client’s outcomes than the particular therapeutic technique that is used. In both psychotherapy and medication treatments for depression, it appears that the more patients perceived their doctors as caring, empathic, open, and sincere, the greater their symptom improvement. There is also good evidence that psychotherapy is as effective and antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, and that antidepressants are slightly superior for chronic depression. However, even the latter should be interpreted carefully and within the context that patients prefer psychotherapy, their adherence to medications is poorer, side effects are worse for medications, and drop out rates are lower for psychotherapy.
Practice Implications
Patients benefit from antidepressant medications, but perhaps not exactly for the reasons that they are told. Psychosocial factors likely account for a large proportion of the effects of many medically-based interventions for mental disorders. Psychosocial factors are actively used in many psychotherapies, and therapists’ qualities like their ability to establish an alliance, empathy, and professionalism account for a moderate to large proportion of why patients get better.
Has Increased Availability of Treatment Reduced the Prevalence of Mental Disorders?
Jorm, A.F., Patten, S.B., Brugha, T.S., & Mojtabai, R. (2017). Has increased provision of treatment reduced the prevalence of common mental disorders? Review of the evidence from four countries. World Psychiatry, 16, 90-99.
Mental disorders are a major source of disability. However, many individuals remain untreated, such that 36% to 50% of serious cases in industrialized countries went untreated in the previous year. In 2001 the World Health Organization argued for making treatment more accessible and to train more mental health professionals. In this wide-ranging review, Jorm and colleagues look at data from the U.K, the U.S., Canada, and Australia to assess if in fact treatment provision has increased over time, and whether this increase was associated with declines in the prevalence of common mental disorders. In all of the countries surveyed, antidepressant use among those with mental disorders (mainly anxiety and depressive disorders) increased dramatically from 1990 to 2011, such that their use rose by 300% or more during that period. The use of psychotherapy increased in Australia by about 46% among those with a diagnosable disorder. While the rates of psychotherapy-use remained the same in the U.K., they declined dramatically in the U.S. from 71.1% in the late 1980s to 43.1% in 2007 (no data was available from Canada). At the same time however, the prevalence of mental disorders has been increasing or remaining the same in all of the four countries. For example, in England the prevalence of common mental disorders among women went from 18.1% in 1993 to 18.9% in 2007. The authors then speculated as to why the dramatic increase in the use of antidepressants was not followed by a decrease in diagnosed mental disorders. They were able to rule out a number of possibilities like increased reporting of mental illnesses, or an increase in risk factors in the communities involved. The authors did suggest however that antidepressant medications may not be prescribed as intended by primary health care providers. For example, in Australia, only 50% of people prescribed antidepressants receive them as recommended in clinical guidelines. In an Alberta, Canada study, 67.2% of those who reported taking an antidepressant had no active mood or anxiety disorder at the time of the survey. Among those with major depression, only 14.3% reported receiving psychotherapy.
Practice Implications
This large review highlights some findings that are already well known: that antidepressant use is dramatically on the rise, and that psychotherapy use is declining slightly over time. This may be due to the quick and easy availability of antidepressant medications, the direct to consumer advertising done by the pharmaceutical industry in some countries, and to a possible cultural need for easy fixes to complex problems. What is new in this review, is that the rise in available antidepressant medications appears not to have made a dent in the rate of mental illness in four industrialized countries.
December 2016
Placebo Response Rates in Antidepressant Trials
Furukawa, T.A., Cipriani, A., Atkinson, L.A., Leucht, S., Ogawa, Y., … Salanti, G. (2016). Placebo response rates in antidepressant trials: A systematic review of published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled studies. Lancet Psychiatry, 3, 1059-1066.
The placebo response in medication trials is an interesting and important phenomenon. Placebo response refers to improvement in clients that is due to therapeutically powerful factors like client’s expectations that an intervention will be effective and to the therapeutic relationship with the health care provider. In medication trials, placebo is seen as problematic because researchers typically want to demonstrate the effectiveness of the active medication (e.g., selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors) independent of any other factors. For this reason, randomized clinical trials of medications are often double-blind and placebo controlled (i.e., clients and clinicians are unaware of who received the active medication and who received the inert placebo pill). It has widely been suspected that over the years the placebo response has been increasing in antidepressant trials possibly due to the types of patients included in trials (i.e., more recently, patients with more severe symptoms are included) and to other methodological issues (e.g., use of multi-centre trials, dosing schedule). An increasing placebo response is suspected of contributing to the growing number of failed anti-depressant trials (i.e., trials that show little or no effectiveness of the medication). Using advanced statistical methods, Furukawa and colleagues evaluated in a meta analysis if placebo response in medication trials was increasing over time. They defined a response as a 50% or greater reduction in observer-rated depression scale scores from baseline to 8 weeks. Their review included 252 placebo controlled trials of antidepressants from 1978 to 2015. Placebo response rates ranged widely from 0% to 70% (I2 = 74.1%) with a mean placebo response of 35% to 40%. Year of publication was not significantly related to placebo response rate after controlling for methodological variables like length of the trial, multi-centre trials, and dose regimen. That is, once change in the methodology of conducting trials over time was accounted for, the placebo response appeared to remain largely the same from year to year.
Practice Implications
The placebo response is very real and complicates our understanding of how and why antidepressants might work for some patients. About 35% to 40% of patients who benefit from antidepressants may be benefitting largely because of the expectation of getting better. Greater treatment response to antidepressants for a large proportion of patients appears to be dependent on the therapeutic features of supportive contact with a caring health professional.
November 2016
Do All Depression Scales Do a Good Job of Measuring Depression?
Fried, E.I. (2016). The 52 symptoms of major depression: Lack of content overlap among seven common depression scales. Journal of Affective Disorders.
Depression is a leading cause of disability in the world and an important reason why people seek psychotherapy. Depression is also the most commonly studied disorder in psychological treatment studies. Measuring depression with self-report or clinician rating scales seems straight forward, but it turns out that it is not. This is important for clinicians because we assume that scales assess depressive symptoms in a reliable way, and that this measurement gives a valid indicator of a patient’s level of depression and improvements in the depressive symptoms. In this review Fried examined the content of the seven of the most common measures of depression including: the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CESD), and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRDS). Many might assume depression to represent a single construct – meaning depression is sometimes thought to represent one unitary thing that is consistent across individuals. Because of that assumption, some might consider depression scales to be interchangeable. But according to Fried, these seven scales listed a total of 52 different symptoms. Using a statistical approach called a Jaccard Index, Fried found that the overlap in symptoms among the different depression scales was low (i.e., different scales seemed to be tapping into different symptoms). When he reviewed the content of each scale, this low overlap seemed clear. For example, the BDI (developed by the founder of CBT) emphasizes cognitive symptoms of depression, the CESD has a number of items that are only indirectly related to depressive symptoms (like interpersonal sensitivity), and the HRDS (often used in medication trials to evaluate side effects) emphasizes somatic symptoms like insomnia, fatigue, and sexual dysfunction. Perhaps this lack of overlap is not so surprising given that the concept of depression is likely multidimensional and not representative of a single uniform construct.
Practice Implications
So what does this mean for clinical practice? Many clinicians use a depression scale to assess their patients and monitor their outcomes. Which scale one uses seems to make a difference in terms of what is being measured and what outcomes are monitored. Using the BDI will emphasize the cognitive aspects of depression, whereas ratings with the HRDS may emphasize the somatic aspects of depression. Fried recommends that researchers use more than one scale, and if the findings differ across scales, then that provides more nuanced information about the effects and outcomes of depression and its treatment. Perhaps the same can be said for clinical practice – if clinicians use only one depression scale, then they should be aware of what aspects of depression or what kind of information about their patent’s depression that the scale is providing.
January 2016
Does Change in Cognitions Explain the Effectiveness of Cognitive Therapy for Depression?
The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Starting 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.
Change in dysfunctional attitudes or cognitions is one of the specific mechanisms by which cognitive therapy (CT) is thought to be effective in the treatment of depression. In this part of their book, Wampold and Imel discuss the evidence that addresses the specific change mechanisms for CT. The reason they focus on CT is that CT is by far the most researched psychotherapy approach, and there is a substantial number of CT studies that have addressed this issue of change mechanisms. In an early meta analysis, Oei and Free (1995) found a significant relationship between change in cognitions and CT. However, in the same meta analysis, the authors found that CT and non-cognitive therapies did not differ in terms of their effects on cognitions. That is, most treatments, whether CT or not, appeared to change cognitions. In another study, three different interventions (behavioral activation, CT, and CT plus behavioral activation) all resulted in change in cognitions and improved depression. In other words, cognitive interventions do not seem to be needed to alter cognitions and reduce depression. Wampold and Imel argue that nonspecific processes in CT (and other psychotherapies for that matter) are largely responsible for the effectiveness of psychotherapy. For example, there is evidence to suggest that a number of patients show substantial symptom improvement early in treatment before specific cognitive techniques are introduced. Some have argued that this early favourable response is largely due to the effects of client expectations, reassurance, and remoralization rather than the specific procedures of the therapy. Moreover, patients who experience this remoralization early-on may be better at successfully applying techniques taught in CT. A large review of this literature concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the notion that challenging thoughts was responsible for the positive effects of CT.
Practice Implications
This line of research appears to indicate that the specific practice of challenging thoughts or dysfunctional attitudes is not primarily responsible for patient change in CT. It may be that for any psychological treatment that has a cogent rationale for the disorder and is administered by an acknowledged expert, client progress may be determined largely by contextual factors. These factors may include a therapeutic alliance, client expectations of benefit, and client remoralization, which may in turn allow clients to benefit from the specific interventions of psychological treatments.