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 the treatment of depression, the effects of role induction in psychotherapy, and negative experiences in psychotherapy from clients’ perspective.
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
May 2017
What is the Therapist’s Contribution to Patient Drop-out?
Saxon, D., Barkham, M., Foster, A., & Parry, G. (2016). The contribution of therapist effects to patient dropout and deterioration in the psychological therapies. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, DOI: 10.1002/cpp.2028.
Sometimes patients experience negative outcomes in psychotherapy. For example, some patients drop out of therapy (i.e., they unilaterally decide to leave therapy before making any progress or before the endpoint planned with the therapist). In a previous meta-analysis of 669 studies, dropout rates ranged from 17% to 26% in psychotherapy trials. In this study, Saxon and colleagues were interested in the therapist effect on drop out. In other words, what is the impact of the individual therapist on negative outcomes like patients unilaterally terminating treatment? To examine the therapist effect one can look at differences between therapists in the average number of patients who drop out within their caseload. The authors looked at over 10,000 patients seen by 85 therapists from 14 sites in the United Kingdom initiative for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies. Therapists were selected if they saw more than 30 patients, and patients were included if they attended more than one session of therapy. Patient mean age was 40.3 (SD = 13.0), 71.2% were women, most were White (95%) and employed (76%). Of all the patients, 76.8% had some level of depression and 82.7% had some level of anxiety. Over 90% of the patients scored in the clinical range for symptom severity at pre-treatment. Patient symptom severity seen by a particular therapist was controlled in this study so that therapists who tended to treat severe cases were not penalized (i.e., case mix was controlled). Patients who dropped out represented 33.8% of the sample, with over half of these patients unilaterally terminating before the third session. The mean number of sessions for treatment completers was 6.1 (SD = 2.68). Therapist differences (i.e., the therapist effect) accounted for 12.6% (CI = 9.1, 17.4) of the patient drop out variance. In other words, about a quarter of therapists had a significantly greater number of drop outs compared to the average therapist. The mean dropout rate for the average therapist was 29.7% (SD = 6.4), the mean dropout rate for the above average therapist was 12.0% (SD = 7.3), whereas the mean dropout rate for the below average therapist was 49.0% (SD = 10.4).
Practice Implications
Who a patient gets as a therapist appears to have an important impact on whether the patient remains in therapy. Almost half of clients dropped out if they saw a poorly performing therapist (and nearly a quarter of therapists were poorly performing). By contrast, highly performing therapists only had a 12% drop out rate. Therapist variables that are known to be related to negative outcomes like dropping out include: lack of empathy, negative countertransference, and disagreements with patients about the therapy process. Previous research showed that therapeutic orientation is not related to negative outcomes. Therapists who are perform below average on when it comes to patient dropout might be able to use progress monitoring or some other means of measuring their patients’ outcomes to their advantage. These therapists may require more support, supervision, or training to improve their patients’ outcomes.
March 2017
Creating a Climate for Improving Therapist Expertise
Goldberg, S.B., Babins-Wagner, R., Rousmaniere, T., Berzins, S., Hoyt, W.T., Whipple, J.L., Miller, S.D., & Wampold, B.E. (2016). Creating a climate for therapist improvement: A case study of an agency focused on outcomes and deliberate practice. Psychotherapy, 53, 367-375.
There is a lot of evidence that psychotherapy is effective – a result that has been demonstrated in randomized trials and in naturalistic setting. As I have noted numerous times in this Blog, psychotherapy is as effective as medications but without the side effects and with longer lasting results. However, there is room for improvement, especially in the effectiveness of individual therapists. Health care organizations are increasingly interested in quality improvement, which refers to efforts to make changes in practice that will lead to better patient outcomes, better care, and better professional development. One approach to quality improvement in medicine has been through audit and feedback – which involves measuring a clinician’s practice, comparing the clinician’s outcomes to professional standards, and giving the clinician feedback. In psychotherapy, the analogue is routine outcome monitoring in which patient progress is monitored with standardized measures throughout therapy, and therapists receive ongoing feedback on each patient’s progress relative to the average patient with that disorder. We know that therapists tend not to improve in terms of patient outcomes with experience alone, and some authors argue that one of the things that therapists are missing is good quality information about their clients’ progress. What would happen if an agency or organization decided to make it a priority to provide therapists with quality information about client progress? This paper by Goldberg and colleagues is a case study in which an agency deliberately created a culture of quality feedback and professional development to improve therapist expertise, therapist intentional practice, and client outcomes. The case study is of a community mental health agency in Alberta. Over 5,000 clients were seen by 153 therapists over a 7 year period (2008 to 2015) as part of the study. Clients received at least three sessions of therapy (mean = 6.53 sessions, SD = 5.02), and had a range of disorders typically seen in a mental health clinic. Therapists included 49.7% licensed or provisionally licensed professionals at the masters or doctoral level from different professions (e.g., social work, psychology, pastoral counselling), and 50.3% practicum students. Throughout the 7 years of the study, therapists saw an average of 33.52 clients (SD = 26.24). In 2008, the agency required the staff to collect outcome measures of all clients before each session (although patient scores were not tied to staff performance evaluations). This policy change caused a 40% turnover in clinical staff within 4 months (clearly a large minority of therapists did not want to participate in this new clinic directive)! These staff positions were replaced and staffing was stable after that point. In addition to requiring clinicians to provide measures on all patients (although patients could decline to participate), the agency provided monthly clinical consultations with an external consultant as a means of professional development. During these consultation, clinicians were encouraged to bring cases that were not progressing well in order to get feedback on their most challenging patients. Discussions were organized around therapeutic alliance, i.e., clarifying goals and preferences, and ways of facilitating engagement. The overall results showed a significant decline in distress among patients over the course of treatment. Of most interest was that therapists on average showed a significant improvement in their outcomes over time. That is, contrary to research showing that therapists do not improve over time when left to their own devices, therapists in this agency that received feedback and professional education around difficult cases did improve significantly.
Practice Implications
The findings of this study indicate that psychotherapists can improve over time if they receive quality information about client progress, and if they receive professional development that is tied to this information (i.e., concrete suggestions for ways of working with difficult clients). In other words, it is possible for therapist to develop expertise over time under some conditions. A significant challenge in this case study was that a number of therapists left the agency due to the quality improvement efforts. Some therapists are sensitive to or feel threatened by outcome monitoring. However, therapists who remained or who were subsequently hired by the agency showed a reliable increase in their expertise and client outcomes as a result of deliberate intentional practice, quality feedback about client progress, and concrete professional development focused on the therapeutic alliance.
Long-Term Medical Conditions Reduce Outcomes in Psychotherapy
Dalgadilo, J., Dawson, A., Gilbody, S., & Bohnke, J.R. (2017). Impact of long-term medical conditions on the outcomes of psychological therapy for depression and anxiety. British Journal of Psychiatry, 210, 47-53.
Twenty percent of people have long-term medical conditions, and this percentage rises to 58% for people over 60. These long-term conditions account for approximately 70% of health care costs in the UK. The most prevalent long-term conditions in the population include: hypertension, chronic pain, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, diabetes, heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Do these conditions reduce the outcomes of psychological therapies? Dalgadilo and colleagues conducted a large study in the UK of patients who accessed publicly funded psychological services. The authors looked at what impact long-medical problems had on psychological intervention outcomes. Patients accessing the public system in the UK received stepped care - so that they were first given self help followed by a second step of intensive psychotherapy, if they needed it. The sample for the study included over 28,000 patients with a mean age of just over 38 years. About 23.2% had a long-term condition. Sixty-eight percent only received the low intensity self help, and 32% required the intensive psychotherapy. Those with long-term conditions, compared to those without long-term conditions, tended to report higher levels of distress and lower quality of life at the outset. Long-term conditions that were associated with poorer psychological intervention outcomes included: chronic pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, severe mental health problems, and diabetes. The effects were small (d = .20) to medium (d = .50) sized (confidence intervals not reported). Those with long-term conditions were more likely to receive high intensity psychotherapy after the self help. However, poorer outcomes for those with long-term conditions, compared to those without long-term conditions, were still apparent after they received the intensive psychotherapy.
Practice Implications
Compared to those without long-term medical conditions, those with long-term conditions have a higher level of impairment to start with and tend to finish therapy with greater depression and anxiety. The study points to the need to integrate psychological therapies in medical practices - especially for those with long-term medical conditions. Certain conditions like chronic pain, and having multiple conditions increase psychological distress and likely reduce patient mental health outcomes.
August 2016
Therapists Affect Patient Dropout and Deterioration
Saxon, D., Barkham, M., Foster, A., & Parry, G. (2016). The contribution of therapist effects to patient dropout and deterioration in the psychological therapies. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy. Advanced online publication, DOI: 10.1002/cpp.2028.
Outcomes for patients receiving psychotherapy are generally positive, but not always. For example, patients might drop out of therapy (i.e., unilaterally end therapy). In clinical trials, the average drop out rate is somewhere between 17% and 26% of patients. Also, patients might deteriorate during therapy (i.e., show a reliable negative change in symptoms from pre- to post-therapy). On average, about 8.2% of patients show a reliable deterioration after therapy. In this large study from a practice-based research network in the UK, Saxon and colleagues were interested in estimating the effect that therapists had on patient drop out and deterioration. Therapist effects refer to differences between therapists and the effects of this difference on patient outcomes. The authors were also interested in whether therapist effects predicted negative outcomes after controlling for therapist case-mix (i.e., patient variables like severity of symptoms, risk of self harm). Their study included 85 therapists who treated more than 10,000 adult patients over a 10-year period. Each therapist saw between 30 and 468 patients at one of 14 sites in the UK. About half of patients had moderate to severe depressive symptoms, and/or moderate to severe anxiety symptoms prior to starting therapy. Outcomes were measured with a reliable and valid psychometric instrument at pre- and post-treatment. The proportion of patients who dropped out of therapy was 33.8%. Patients who dropped out attended an average of 2.8 sessions (SD = 1.91), whereas treatment completers attended an average of 6.1 sessions (SD = 2.68). About 23.5% of therapists had drop out rates that were significantly worse than average. These below average therapists (n = 13) had 49% of their patients drop out, whereas above average therapists (n = 20) had only 12% of their patients drop out. Most patients who completed therapy improved (72.2%), but about 7.2% of patients deteriorated to some degree. The average therapist (i.e., 74% of therapists) had 4.6% of their patients who got worse, whereas below average therapists (i.e., 4.7% of therapists) had up to 14.9% of their patients who got worse. That is, almost 3 times as many patients deteriorated with below average therapists.
Practice Implications
We know from previous studies that the type and amount of therapist training or theoretical orientation are not predictive of patient outcomes. However, previous research does suggest that therapists’ lack of empathy, negative countertransference, over-use of transference interpretations, and disagreement with patients about therapy process was associated with negative outcomes. Patient safety concerns might necessitate below average therapists to be identified and provided with greater support, supervision, and training.
June 2016
Is Therapist Effectiveness a Stable Characteristic?
Kraus, D. R., Bentley, J. H., Alexander, P. C., Boswell, J. F., Constantino, M. J., Baxter, E. E., & Castonguay, L. G. (2016). Predicting therapist effectiveness from their own practice-based evidence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(6), 473-483.
There is lots of evidence that there are differences between therapists in their patients’ outcomes. Some studies estimate that 5% to 7% of patient outcomes can be attributed to differences between therapists’ abilities and style of delivering treatment. But most of these studies measured outcomes only once, and so they could not estimate if therapist effects are stable across time. Further, many of these studies used only a global measure of patient distress as an outcome and did not measure domain-specific outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, mania, alcohol dependence, etc.). In this study by Krauss and colleagues, 59 therapists who treated 3,540 patients were included. Therapists had on average 10 years of experience and were from a variety of professions (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, counsellors etc.). The settings included mental health clinics, independent practice, hospitals, and others. The authors went to some effort to control for case-mix variables such as client problem difficulty, length of treatment, caseload size, and other variables. Client outcomes were measured for 12 different domains ranging from depression to sexual dysfunction to substance abuse. First, outcomes were assessed for 30 patients of each therapist, and then these were compared to outcomes of the same therapist’s next 30 patients. Therapists were classified as “exceptional”, “average”, or “below average” based on their patients’ outcomes. Fifty-seven percent of therapists who were rated as exceptional with the first 30 patients were likely to remain exceptional or above average with the next 30 patients. In other words, effective therapists tended to remain effective over time. Therapists had better patient outcomes when it came to depression, suicidality, and substance abuse, but therapists tended not to have as good outcomes when it came to mania, and sexual functioning.
Practice Implications
Effective therapists tend to remain effective over time for particular client problem areas. However, therapists are seldom effective for more than 4 or 5 client presenting problems, and less than 10 % of therapists are effective with all client problem areas. Therefore patients with differing problems are likely to achieve better or worse outcomes depending on the particular therapist and his or her strengths. Therapists can regularly assess patient outcomes and use that information to help with continuing education to improve their practice for a particular problem area.
Are Therapists Uniformly Effective Across Patient Outcomes?
Nissen-Lie, H. A., Goldberg, S. B., Hoyt, W. T., Falkenström, F., Holmqvist, R., Nielsen, S. L., & Wampold, B. E. (2016). Are therapists uniformly effective across patient outcome domains? A study of therapist effectiveness in two different treatment contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication.
What characterizes more or less effective therapists? Are some therapists more effective for certain types of client mental health problems? In this study by Nissen-Lie and colleagues the authors look at whether therapists are skilled across patient problem domains. They conducted two studies with over 6000 patients and almost 200 therapists. Patients were assessed with common outcome measures of mental health domains that included: social functioning, work functioning, relationship functioning and symptom distress. Therapists included psychologists and social work professionals (70%) and trainees (30%) who saw at least 10 patients each. Theoretical orientations ranged from CBT, psychodynamic, and supportive psychotherapy. Patients were symptomatic at the start of therapy and primarily had problems with anxiety and depression. Patient symptoms on average improved so that psychotherapy had a moderate to large effect. Therapists did not differ in caseload mix regarding client severity. The authors reported that the client mental health domains (i.e., symptom severity, work functioning, social functioning, and interpersonal functioning) were relatively distinct or unrelated areas (i.e., the domains were largely uncorrelated). The authors then calculated change scores for each client domain area and used these change scores in a multilevel factor analysis. They wanted to see if a therapist’s clients achieved greater change in one client domain versus in another client domain. The results showed that if clients of a therapist changed in one domain (e.g., depression) then that outcome was highly related to change in another domain (e.g., interpersonal functioning). In other words, if a therapist was effective (or ineffective) in reducing client symptoms, then that therapist was also likely effective (or ineffective) in reducing, work, social, and relationship problems.
Practice Implications
The results support the notion of therapist uniformity in terms of client outcome domains. In other words effective therapists tend to be effective with many types of client problems (but perhaps not all client problems – see my blog this month of the Kraus et al. (2016) study). The authors argue that effective therapists have three key qualities: flexibility in adapting treatments to clients, sensitivity to differences between clients, and responsiveness to clients’ reactions to therapeutic interventions. That is, effective therapists are willing and able to self correct when required.