Blog

Carl, E., Witcraft, S.M., Kauffman, B.Y., Gillespie, E.M., Becker, E.S…. Powers, M.B. (2019). Psychological and pharmacological treatments for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, DOI:10.1080/16506073.2018.1560358

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is characterized by excessive and difficult to control worry about events or activities. GAD is associated with a high level of impairment in social functioning, work productivity, and health-related quality of life. GAD is also associated with a high level of medical costs and health care utilization. About 4.3% of the general population have experienced GAD at one time in their life. In this updated meta-analysis, Carl and colleagues reviewed the empirical literature to compare the effects of psychotherapies and pharmacotherapy to control conditions. Seventy-nine studies with over 11,000 participants were included in the review. In 39 comparisons, evidence-based psychotherapies outperformed control conditions on measures of anxiety at posttreatment (g = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.61–0.91, p < 0.001), suggesting a medium to large effect. Only 12 studies evaluated follow-up data, and they found that psychotherapy resulted in a small but statistically significant average effect on anxiety symptoms (g = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.00–0.53, p = 0.05). Compared to older patients, younger patients tended to do better in psychotherapy. Forty-three studies found that pharmacotherapy consistently outperformed control conditions at post-treatment (g = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.30–0.47, p < 0.001) suggesting a small effect. There were no studies that assessed pharmacotherapy at a follow-up date. Patient age or treatment dose did not affect outcomes of pharmacotherapy. The authors were careful to point out that that the effect sizes of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy were not comparable in this meta-analysis because psychotherapy trials tended to use no-treatment controls whereas pharmacotherapy trials tended to use placebo controls, and the latter tends to produce more conservative (smaller) estimates of effects.

Practice Implications

Both psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy appear to be effective by post-treatment for patients with GAD. The effects of psychotherapy at follow-up is diminished, and no studies evaluated whether patients receiving pharmacotherapy maintained any gains at follow-up. Research has suggested that compared to psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy outcomes for depression at follow up is poorer. Although this study does not allow one to compare psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, evidence from another meta-analysis suggests that patients would strongly prefer psychotherapy if given the choice. And patients receiving their preferred treatment tend to experience significantly better outcomes.

Author email: emilycarl@utexas.edu

Norcross, J.C. & Wampold, B.E. (2018). A new therapy for each patient: Evidence‐based relationships and responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, Online First, DOI: 10.1002/jclp.22678

Over the next several months, I will review in this blog results of a number of meta-analyses conducted recently on patient factors and relationship factors in psychotherapy. These factors provide evidence-based guidance to psychotherapists on how best to relate to and adapt to clients so that psychotherapy is more effective. This introductory article by Norcross and Wampold is an overview of the nine meta analyses related to transdiagnostic client factors to which therapists can adapt their interpersonal stances and treatment. The goal is to enhance treatment effectiveness by therapists tailoring therapy to individual client characteristics that are related to outcomes. Decades of research indicate that client transdiagnostic characteristics have more influence on outcomes than the particular treatment method, and likely more influence than the particular client diagnosis. The research indicates that giving the identical treatment to every client without adaptation to client characteristics is not an effective approach to providing psychotherapy. These meta analyses of client factors indicate that therapists should select different interventions and relational stances according to the client and the context. What are these client characteristics and therapist adaptations that are reliably related to outcomes? The client factors most strongly related to outcomes include therapist adaptations to: client culture/race/ethnicity (99 studies, g = .50); client preferences for type of therapy (51 studies, g = .28), client religion/spirituality (97 studies, g = .13 to .43), client stage of change (76 studies, g = .41), client reactance/resistance level (13 studies, g = .78), client coping style (32 studies, g = .53), and client attachment style (32 studies, g = .35). Over the next months, I will be reviewing in more detail these meta analyses of client factors and the practice implications of each so that therapists can use this evidence-base to help them to adapt to particular client characteristics.

Practice Implications

Practitioners will find that fitting the therapy to clients’ culture, stage of change, religion/spirituality, reactance/resistance, coping style, and attachment style will improve treatment outcomes. Doing so will have a greater impact on outcomes than the particular type of therapy provided or adapting treatment to the particular client diagnosis. The results of this large body of evidence suggests that therapists should no longer ask: “what is my theoretical orientation” but rather they should ask: “what relationship, adaptation, and approach will be most effective with this particular client”.

Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2018). Psychotherapy relationships that work III. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 303-315.

Relationship factors in psychotherapy are some of the most important predictors of patient outcomes. They outweigh factors like the type of therapy provided in determining whether patients get better after psychotherapy. In this second overview article, Norcross and Lambert provide a review of 17 meta-analyses of relationship factors in psychotherapy that contribute to positive outcomes. Like the review of patient factors also found in this blog and E-Newsletter, this article briefly outlines those evidence-based relationship factors that reliably predict patient outcomes in psychotherapy. The therapeutic relationship refers to how the therapist and patient relate to each other, or their interpersonal behaviors. By contrast, techniques or interventions refer to what is done by the therapist. Practice guidelines typically focus on interventions or therapeutic orientation. As the authors argue, what is missing from treatment guidelines are the person of the therapist and the therapeutic relationship – evidence for which is backed up by 5 decades of research. Even in studies of highly structured manualized psychotherapy for a specific disorder in which efforts were made to reduce the effect of individual therapist, up to 18% of outcomes (a moderate to large effect) could be attributed to the person of the therapist. By contrast somewhere between 0% and 10% of outcomes (a small to moderate effect) is attributable to specific treatment methods. So, which therapeutic relationship factors are reliably related to patient outcomes? These include: the therapeutic alliance in individual therapy (306 studies, g = .57) couple therapy (40 studies, g = .62), and adolescent psychotherapy (43 studies, g = .40), collaboration (53 studies, g = .61) and goal consensus (54 studies, g = .49), cohesion in group therapy (55 studies, g = .56), therapist empathy (82 studies, g = .58), collecting and delivering client feedback or progress monitoring (24 studies, g = .14 to .49), managing countertransference (9 studies, g = .84), and repairing therapeutic alliance ruptures (11 studies, g = .62) among others. Over the next few months, I will be reviewing these meta analyses in more detail to discuss how therapists can use this evidence base to improve their patients’ outcomes.

Practice Implications

The research as a whole indicates that therapists should make the creation and cultivation of the therapeutic relationship a primary goal of therapy. Factors such as managing the therapeutic alliance, repairing alliance ruptures, engaging in ongoing progress monitoring, managing countertransference and others should be used to modify treatments and interpersonal stances in order to maximize outcomes. When seeking out professional development and training, practitioners should focus on evidence-based relationship factors (managing the alliance, judicious self disclosure, managing emotional expression, promoting credibility of the treatment, collecting formal feedback, managing countertransference) in addition to focusing on evidence-based treatments.

Okiishi, J., Lambert, M. J., Nielsen, S. L., & Ogles, B. M. (2003). Waiting for supershrink: An empirical analysis of therapist effects. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 10(6), 361-373.

Much of psychotherapy research has focused on searching for effective psychotherapies rather than focusing on effective psychotherapists. Research on psychotherapies generally assumes that therapists are equally effective or relatively less important to patient outcomes than the interventions themselves. Therapists in clinical trials are trained to follow a manual in an attempt to reduce the therapists’ impact on patient outcomes, and to focus the study on the specific ingredients of the therapy itself. However, research indicates that the degree to which a therapist follows a manual has little bearing on patient outcomes, and that therapists do differ in terms of their patients’ outcomes. In one large study, between 33% and 65% of therapists was ineffective or harmful. Okiishi and colleagues asked if it is possible to identify highly effective therapists (“super-shrinks”) and highly ineffective therapists (“pseudo-shrinks”) based on their patients’ outcomes. The therapists were 56 men and women who treated 1779 clients in a university counselling centre. Each therapist saw at least 15 clients, so that there was a good sampling of therapists’ outcomes across a variety of clients. Therapists had a range of experience, training, and theoretical orientations. Clients were adults who had moderate to severe problems with anxiety, depression, or adjustment. Outcomes were measured after every session, and the average number of sessions was 5.16 (SD = 7.20). On average clients improved so that their level of distress significantly declined. Therapist characteristics (sex, experience, training background, theoretical orientation) did not predict patient outcomes. However, client change varied significantly, so that some clients improved at a faster rate than others, some did not change, and some got worse. There were no differences between therapists in their clients’ level of distress, so therapists had equivalent caseloads in terms of client initial distress. However, therapists significantly differed from each other in terms of their clients’ outcomes. For example, the top 3 therapists consistently had clients who got better (super-shrinks), and the bottom 3 therapists consistently had clients who got worse (pseudo-shrinks).

Practice Implications

One would hope that a loved one would get to see a “super-shrink” therapist, since these therapists seem to consistently have clients who do well in therapy. But what about the average or “pseudo-shrink” therapist– what can be done to elevate their skills and their patients’ outcomes? We’ve discussed in this blog several things therapists can do to improve their outcomes, including: using progress monitoring in their practice, receiving training focused on deliberate practice, and seeking out specific continuing education around developing, maintaining, and repairing the therapeutic alliance.

Grenon, R., Carlucci, S., Brugnera, A., Schwartze, D., … Tasca, G. A. (2018). Psychotherapy for eating disorders: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons, Psychotherapy Research, DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2018.1489162

Eating disorders can cause a great deal of physical and mental impairment because of the severity of the symptoms and because of comorbid conditions like depression, anxiety, substance use, and others. Anorexia nervosa (AN) occurs in about 0.5% of the population, bulimia nervosa (BN) occurs in about 1.5% of the population, and binge-eating disorder (BED) occurs in about 3.5% of the population. Treatment guidelines include both cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) as front line interventions for BN and BED. However, results from previous meta analyses of psychological treatments for eating disorders were confounded by not focusing exclusively on randomized controlled trials, mixing studies of adult and adolescent samples, combining an array of outcomes rather than separately reporting primary (eating disorder symptoms) and secondary (interpersonal problems, depression) outcomes, and not distinguishing between bona fide psychotherapies (like CBT, IPT, psychodynamic therapy, and others) from non-bona fide treatments (like self help, behavioral weight loss supportive counseling). Grenon and colleagues conducted a meta analysis of psychotherapies for eating disorders to examine if: psychotherapy is effective compared to a wait list, if bona fide psychotherapy and non-bona fide treatment differ in outcomes, and if one type of psychotherapy (i.e., CBT) was more effective than other bona fide psychotherapies (like IPT, behavior therapy, psychodynamic therapy, dialectical behavior therapy). Their meta analysis included 35 randomized controlled trials of direct comparisons. Psychotherapy was significantly more effective than a wait-list control at post treatment, so that 53.89% of patients were abstinent of symptoms after psychotherapy compared to only 8.92% who were abstinent in the wait-list group. Bona fide psychotherapies (51% abstinent) were significantly more effective than non-bona fide treatments (40% abstinent) at post treatment, and dropout in bona fide psychotherapies (17.5%) was significantly lower than in non-bona fide treatment (29.1%). Further, the difference between CBT and other bona fide psychotherapies was not significant.

Practice Implications

Psychotherapy for eating disorders are effective for patients with BN or BED. There were too few studies of those with AN to come to any conclusions about their treatment. Patients with BN or BED are best treated with a bona fide psychotherapy that involves face to face psychological therapy like CBT, IPT, psychodynamic therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, or behavior therapy. Non-bona fide treatments like self help, behavioral weight loss, and supportive counseling should only be used as an adjunct to bona fide psychotherapy for eating disorders.

Miller, S. D., Hubble, M. A., Chow, D., & Seidel, J. (2015). Beyond measures and monitoring: Realizing the potential of feedback-informed treatment. Psychotherapy, 52(4), 449-457.

Progress monitoring is the process of repeatedly assessing client functioning with validated measures and providing feedback to therapists. The feedback is designed to identify problems with the therapeutic relationship or with client deterioration by comparing client progress to similar clients. This allows therapists to change what they are doing, renegotiate aspects of therapy, or directly address the issues. Research is clear that progress monitoring significantly increases the proportion of clients who improve, reduces drop outs by a third, shortens the length of therapy, and reduces costs. Yet the research also indicates that only 12% of psychologists are using progress monitoring in their practice. If progress monitoring is so useful, then why aren`t more therapists using it? In this review, Miller and colleagues discuss some of the barriers and problems with using or adopting progress monitoring in clinical practice. They describe that even in the most favorable circumstances, it takes about two decades for new treatments to be integrated into routine care. Another issue is that recent surveys indicate that only about 33% of psychologists and 66% of training directors are aware of progress monitoring. Even for those who are aware, a common barrier might be cost and time to implement the procedures. Despite the brevity and low cost of the tools, like the PCOMS, they all place an additional burden on clinicians’ busy schedule. There is also the issue of staff turnover. As staff come and go, organizations may lose those who lead, train, and support the use of progress monitoring. Probably the biggest barrier is skepticism on the part of clinicians who might see the tools as too superficial, or who might be concerned that repeated measurement may somehow negatively affect the therapeutic relationship. However, research indicates that clients generally report positive experiences – they like being a more integral part of the assessment process, and they appreciate the ability to track their own progress. Finally, whereas clinicians may use progress monitoring to improve clinical decision-making, administrators may see it as a means of conducting performance reviews.

Practice Implications

In most health care fields, it can take 20 years for an innovation to make it into routine practice. That might be the case for progress monitoring. More clinicians need to know about it, be trained in its use, and see for themselves that the information is valid, of high quality, and that it can supplement their work in identifying clients who are not doing well. In particular, progress monitoring may be a means of enhancing the therapeutic alliance as it provides therapists and clients a vehicle to discuss how the therapy is going, what needs focus, and what to do if things go awry. Organizations need to treat progress monitoring as a means of helping therapists to improve their skills, and not as a means of auditing performance. Therapists need quality information upon which to make sound clinical decisions, and progress monitoring is one way of receiving this information.