Blog

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.

Some therapists achieve better patient outcomes than others. This seems obvious on the surface and yet few people talk about it, and the research literature seems to downplay or ignore this fact. To illustrate the differing outcomes achieved by therapists, I reviewed a unique study in the September 2013 PPRNet Blog. In that study, 10 cases were randomly selected from 700 therapists (N = 7000 patients), and therapist outcomes were assessed by averaging their patient outcomes. Depending on the presenting problem, as many as 67% of therapists were reliably effective, but as many as 16% were reliably harmful. Clearly therapists differ. Yet psychotherapy research typically treats therapists as if they are uniformly effective. In their chapter, Wampold and Imel review some of the research that estimates the therapist’s effect on outcomes. In other words, what is the impact of the particular therapist on the patient outcomes? Even in studies in which: (a) therapists are selected as experts to provide a specific type of therapy (i.e., CBT, psychodynamic, interpersonal, etc.), (b) therapists are highly trained to be adherent to a manual with repeated supervision, and (c) patients are randomly assigned to treatments, there remains a significant amount of variability in therapist outcomes. Indeed in many studies the therapist effect is as large or larger than the effect of the intervention that is being delivered. In other words, which therapist a patient gets in a treatment study matters just as much or more than what type of therapy they receive. This is also true in medication trials. Better psychiatrists (i.e., those with overall better patient outcomes) who gave a placebo had better patient outcomes than poorer psychiatrists who gave the active medication. A recent large meta analysis found that about 5% of patient outcomes in controlled psychotherapy trials was attributable to the therapist, and the effect is as high as 7% in naturalistic settings. For treatment of PTSD, therapist effects are as high as 12%. On the surface these look like small effects, but in reality they can have a big cumulative impact. Therapists with the best and worst outcomes differ dramatically. For example in one large study, the best performing therapists had a patient response rate of 80% compared to the worst performing therapists who had only 20% of their patients improve. Which therapist would you want a loved one to see?

Practice Implications

Wampold and Imel reported that that therapist effects generally exceed the effects of the specific treatment that is being tested or provided. Some therapists consistently achieve better patient outcomes than others. What are the characteristics and actions of effective therapists? Factors like therapist allegiance to the therapy, empathy, and the ability to form and maintain an alliance with clients appear to differentiate therapists who consistently have good patient outcomes versus those whose patients tend to have poor outcomes.

Kivlighan, D.M., Goldberg, S.B., Abbas, M., Pace, B.T., …Wampold, B.E. (2015). The enduring effects of psychodynamic treatments vis-à-vis alternative treatments: A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 1-14.

There is a great deal of evidence that indicates uniform efficacy of a variety of psychotherapies for many common disorders. For example, in the July 2014 PPRNet Blog, I reviewed a meta-analysis comparing 7 psychotherapies for depression indicating no differences between the various treatments in terms of patient outcomes. Nevertheless proponents of cognitive behavioural therapy have claimed superiority to alternative treatments for decades. On the other hand proponents of psychodynamic therapies have argued that these treatments focus on personality change rather than symptoms, and so benefits of psychodynamic therapies will be longer lasting. In this meta analysis, Kivlighan and colleagues put these claims to the test. They selected studies in which a psychodynamic therapy was compared to one or more alternative treatment. Both the psychodynamic therapy and the alternative (most often CBT) had to be judged as “bona fide” therapies by independent raters (i.e., they had to be therapies that were delivered in a manner in which they could be expected to be effective by clients and therapists). Outcomes not only included specific symptoms (e.g., depression), but also non-targeted outcomes (e.g., improved self esteem in a study of treatment of anxiety), and personality outcomes. Effect sizes for outcomes were assessed at post-treatment and also at follow-ups. Twenty five studies directly comparing psychodynamic and non-psychodynamic therapies were included, representing 1690 patients. At post treatment, no significant differences were found between psychodynamic and non-psychodynamic treatments on targeted outcomes, non-targeted outcomes, and personality measures (all gs < .10). There was also no significant or meaningful effect of time to follow up on outcomes, indicating no differences between treatment types at any of the follow up periods.

Practice Implications

Psychodynamic and non-psychodynamic treatments were equally effective at post treatment and at follow ups for all outcomes, including personality variables. This challenges the belief that psychodynamic treatments uniquely affect personality and have longer lasting effects compared to other treatments. It also challenges the notion that CBT (by far the most common comparison treatment) is a superior therapy for patient outcomes. Pan-theoretical psychotherapy factors (client contributions, expectations, therapeutic alliance) may be more promising factors in understanding the long term benefits of psychotherapy. 

Author email: kivlighan@wisc.edu

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.

The narrative about the relative efficacy of psychotherapies for depression has shifted over the past several decades. In the early days (1970s – 1980s) there appeared to be accumulating evidence that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more efficacious than “other psychotherapies”. However, today one look at the Society for Clinical Psychology list of empirically supported treatments for depression indicates that a variety of interventions are efficacious. In this part of their book, Wampold & Imel examine this change. Early in their book, they defined psychotherapy as: (1) based psychological principles, (2) involving a trained therapist and a client who is seeking help for a mental disorder, (3) intended to be helpful for the client’s complaints, and (4) adapted to the client’s problem. Wampold and Imel argue that many of the treatments compared to CBT in the early days did not meet this definition of psychotherapy. That is, many of the early comparison treatments were not bona-fide therapies; so the comparisons were not expected to be therapeutic. Common comparisons to CBT were “usual care”, “supportive therapy”, and “self directed care” that for the most part did not meet the definition of psychotherapy. Further, the providers of usual care or supportive therapy had no allegiance to the treatment or expectation that the intervention was useful, which eroded the credibility of these interventions for the client. When bona-fide psychotherapies are compared to each other, the effect sizes tend to be small or negligible. For example, Braun and colleagues (2013) conducted a large meta analysis of 53 studies with nearly 4,000 patients.  When they looked specifically at studies of bona fide therapies, and pairs of treatments that were compared in at least 5 studies, there were no differences between the treatments. Similar findings are reported in large a network meta analysis by Barth and colleagues (2013) (198 studies with 15,118 patients) that was summarized in the July 2014 PPRNet Blog.

Practice Implications

Psychotherapies that are based on sound psychological principles, delivered by trained therapists for clients who seek help and that are intended to be helpful for the client’s complaint are likely to be equally effective for depressive disorders. A variety of psychotherapies including, CBT, emotionally-focused therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy, and short-term psychodynamic therapy have demonstrated empirical support for their efficacy in treating depression. Client expectations of receiving benefit and therapist allegiance to treatment enhance the effectiveness of treatments.

Johnsen, T. J., & Friborg, O. (2015, May 11). The effects of cognitive behavioral therapy as an anti-depressive treatment is falling: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bul0000015

Depression is a highly debilitating disorder and ranked third in terms of disease burden in the world. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression that was introduced over 40 years ago. In part, CBT sees depression as caused by maladaptive thoughts that maintain emotional distress and dysfunctional behavior. Reducing depression is achieved by eliminating the impact of or chancing maladaptive thoughts. CBT is the most researched psychological treatment for depression, and the research goes back several decades. A number of technical variations and new additions have been made over the years to CBT to improve patient outcomes. The volume of research and its history provides a unique opportunity to assess time trends in the effects of CBT. In this meta analysis, Johnsen and Friborg asked: “have the effects of CBT changed over time”? They also looked at whether client factors (e.g., demographics, symptom severity), therapist factors (e.g., age, experience, training), common factors (e.g., therapeutic alliance, client expectancies), and technique factors (e.g., fidelity to a treatment manual) can explain these trends. Johnsen and Friborg reported on 70 studies of 2,426 patients conducted from 1977 to 2014. Males accounted for 30.9% of patients, 43% had comorbid psychiatric conditions, and the average patient was at least moderately depressed. The average effect of CBT in reducing depression was large (g = 1.46 after accounting for publication bias). Women had better outcomes, studies with poorer methodological quality showed larger effects, and patients of more experienced therapists had better outcomes. There were too few studies measuring therapeutic alliance to assess the effect of common factors on outcomes. Most interesting was a significant relationship between effect sizes and year of publication. That is, the effects of CBT declined significantly over the years, though the average effect remained large. Surprisingly, there was a steeper decline for studies that used a treatment manual compared to those that did not. No other variables were reliably associated with this decline.

Practice Implications

Women and patients of more experienced therapists appear to benefit most from CBT. Although the effects of CBT declined over time, the treatment remained highly effective. Johnsen and Friborg’s study could not easily explain this decline. The authors suggested that the placebo effect (expectation on the part of patients, researchers, and therapists) is typically stronger for new treatments. However, as time passes the strong initial expectations tend to wane thus reducing the overall effect of the intervention. They also suggested that CBT treatment outcomes may be improved not by technical variations and new additions, but by better ways of integrating common, therapist, and client factors.

Author email: tjj@psykologtromso.no

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.

Why We Should Care About Allegiance Effects in Psychotherapy Research

Allegiance in psychotherapy refers to the degree to which a researcher or therapist believes that the therapy they are studying or delivering is effective. Clients have an expectation that therapists have an explanation for their disorder and that the therapy used to address that explanation will lead to improvements. On their part, psychotherapists choose a therapeutic approach that is consistent with their understanding of psychological distress. Wampold and Imel argue that therapist allegiance is a common factor across therapies that contributes to good patient outcomes. Although allegiance is an important therapeutic factor, it complicates the conduct of psychotherapy research. In a trial comparing two treatments, for example, researchers and therapists tend to be affiliated with one of the treatments and so they believe in the effectiveness of their treatment. They often do not feel the same way about the comparison treatment, or they may desire that their preferred treatment be more effective than the comparison. In medication trials, this allegiance effect can be controlled by a double blind placebo controlled design in which both therapist and patient are not aware of who is receiving which active medication, or who is receiving a placebo. It is impossible to blind therapists in psychotherapy trials – therapists have to know what treatment they are providing. When doing a meta analytic review of psychotherapy trials, it is possible and relatively easy to identify the allegiance of the researchers in a particular study by looking at their past publications, and by reading what they say about the therapies they are comparing. Often, the developer of a treatment manual is a co-author of the trial. Wampold and Imel review several meta analyses that assess the allegiance effects. In three meta analyses from published in 1980, 1999, and 2013 the correlation between ratings of researcher allegiance and effects of psychotherapy on patient outcomes ranged from moderate to large (r = .26 to r = .85). One interesting meta analysis illustrates the magnitude of this effect. The reviewers looked at 69 studies on self statement monitoring (SSM), a type of cognitive therapy developed by Meichenbaum. The average effect of SSM compared to controls in all studies was d = .53 to d = .74, which is moderate. However, effect sizes found in the studies co-authored by Meichenbaum were nearly twice as large, d = d = 1.23. Being a co-investigator in a study of a therapy that one develops, apparently doubles the effect of the treatment on patient outcomes.

Practice Implications

Therapist allegiance to a treatment is important to the effectiveness of the treatment in that therapist allegiance increases the therapist’s confidence in the treatment’s effectiveness and increases a patient’s expectation of getting better. However, when interpreting psychotherapy trials, especially those that pit one type of therapy against another, it is important to keep in mind the researchers’ allegiance. It is rare to see trials that compare two interventions in which the research team is made of up proponents of the two interventions. However such trials are important and necessary.

Markowitz, J.C., Petkova, E., Neria, Y., Van Meter, P.E., Zhao, Y., … Marshall, R.D. (2015). Is exposure necessary? A randomized controlled trial of Interpersonal Psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 1-11.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a condition caused by experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event. Symptoms may include flashbacks, nightmares and severe anxiety, as well as uncontrollable thoughts about the event. PTSD has a lifetime prevalence of 6.8%, which makes it a highly prevalent disorder. The main technique of empirically validated psychological treatments for PTSD involve exposing patients to safe reminders of the trauma including memories, with the intent of extinguishing the fear responses. This is the basis of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with prolonged exposure, which is a consensus treatment for PTSD. However, not all patients benefit from CBT with prolonged exposure, and such treatment may be too difficult for some patients and therapists to tolerate. Markowitz and colleagues argued that PTSD symptoms reflect interpersonal issues including interpersonal withdrawal, mistrust, and hypervigilence. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) is a time-limited efficacious treatment for depression that was adapted for this study for non-exposure based non-CBT treatment of PTSD. IPT was modified so that the first half of treatment focused on recognizing, naming, and expressing feelings in non-trauma related interpersonal situations. The second half of treatment focused on common IPT themes such as role disputes and role transitions. The authors argued that IPT helps individuals with PTSD gain mastery over social interactions and mobilize social supports. The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial that had a sufficient sample size to test a hypothesis of “non-inferiority”, that is to adequately test if PTSD and exposure based CBT were equally effective. Both treatments were compared to a progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) control condition. In all, 110 participants with chronic PTSD were recruited and randomized to IPT, CBT, or PMR. Most patients reported trauma of 14 years duration from either sexual or physical abuse, and half had a current comorbid depression. All three interventions resulted in large significant reductions in PTSD symptoms. IPT (63%) and CBT (47%) were not significantly different in rates of response (i.e., in which response was defined as 30% improvement in a clinician administered PTSD scale), but IPT had a significantly higher response rate than PMR (38%). Patients with comorbid depression were more likely to drop out of CBT with prolonged exposure than IPT.

Practice Implications

The results of the study suggest that IPT and CBT with exposure were equally effective in reducing symptoms of PTSD. It is important to keep in mind that this is one well-conducted trial that needs to be replicated by independent researchers in order to establish if the findings are truly reliable. Nevertheless, the findings contradict the widespread belief that patients with PTSD require exposure-based treatment in order to improve. IPT may be another option for the treatment of PTSD, especially for patients who cannot tolerate the prolonged exposure. Patients with comorbid depression may have the most difficulty tolerating prolonged exposure therapy, and so they may benefit from IPT as an alternative. IPT may help patients gain abilities in social interactions and social support, which may make it easier for them to spontaneously expose themselves to recollections of trauma.