Blog

COVID-19: Last Update

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.

April 2021

Therapeutic Alliance Predicts Patient Outcomes Over and Above Other Factors

Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wlodasch, D., Horvath, A. O., Solomonov, N., & Wampold, B. E. (2020, March 26). Assessing the alliance–outcome association adjusted for patient characteristics and treatment processes: A meta-analytic summary of direct comparisons. Journal of Counseling Psychology. Advance online publication.

The therapeutic alliance is probably the most researched concept in psychotherapy. The alliance refers to a collaborative agreement on the tasks of therapy (what patients and therapists do in therapy, like homework, or examine the past or relationship issues), a collaborative agreement on the goals of therapy (what the desired outcomes might be), and the relational bond between patient and therapist (liking and respect for one another). The most recent meta-analysis of the alliance included 296 studies. The meta-analysis showed a moderate and robust relationship between higher alliance and better patient outcomes regardless of type of therapy, who rated the alliance, or how it was rated. Nevertheless, some still think that the alliance is a byproduct of other factors like patient symptom severity (less symptomatic patients may report a better alliance with therapists) or adherence to treatment manuals (higher therapist adherence may lead to a better alliance). In other words, some argue that the alliance may not directly affect outcomes and may not be that important. In this meta-analysis, Fluckiger and colleagues examined 60 studies with over 6,000 patients that reported the alliance-outcome relationship, and also the effects of patient characteristics like symptom severity and adherence to treatment manuals. Overall, the therapeutic alliance was significantly related to patient outcomes, r = .304 (95% CI [.253, .354], p < .001, k = 53). When the authors of the primary studies controlled for patient characteristics like symptom severity, the adjusted alliance - outcome correlation remained significant, r = .286 (95% CI [.226, .344], p = .001, k = 35). When the authors of primary studies controlled for the effects of therapist adherence to a treatment manual, the adjusted alliance – outcome correlation still remained significant, r = .242 (95% CI [.179, .306], p = .001, k = 13). The slight reduction in the alliance-outcome correlation caused by the effects of patient symptom severity or therapist adherence to a manual was not significant.

Practice Implications

Therapists’ capacity to develop a therapeutic alliance is a key factor to patients experiencing a good outcome from psychotherapy. This is true for many types of patients with differing levels of symptom severity, and also true regardless of type of therapy or level of therapist adherence to a treatment protocol. Developing shared treatment goals and agreeing on the tasks of therapy are important first steps. In addition, therapists and clients who like working together and share a sense of mutual respect are more likely to experience a successful therapy. Maintaining the alliance throughout therapy is also important. The alliance fluctuates across time indicating subtle or obvious ruptures or tensions that occur. Therapists’ skills at identifying and repairing alliance ruptures is critical to an ongoing collaborative relationship and to patients achieving the best possible outcomes.

March 2021

Identifying Outcomes for Depression That Matter to Patients

Chevance, A., Ravaud, P., Tomlinson, A., Le Berre, C., Teufer, B., … Tran, V.T. (2020). Identifying outcomes for depression that matter to patients, informal caregivers, and health-care professionals: Qualitative content analysis of a large international online survey. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7, 692-702.

One of the criticisms of mental health treatment research is that the outcomes measured in these studies are those that matter to researchers but may not matter as much to patients. Common outcome measures of depression like the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were developed by researchers because of their relative ease of use, and their sensitivity to change following treatment. But these measures provide a narrow view of what it is like to experience depression because they focus only on a limited set of symptoms. But is symptom reduction the only thing that matters to patients and their loved ones? In this large-scale study by Chevance and colleagues, the authors surveyed over 1900 patients with a mood disorder, 464 informal caregivers (family members), and 627 health care providers from a wide range of mental health disciplines. The survey extended across dozens of countries and sampled a range of age groups. The authors asked patients open ended questions about what outcomes are important to them in the treatment of their depression, and then the responses were analyzed using a qualitative method. Chevance and colleagues identified two broad categories important to patients: symptoms and functioning. Regarding symptoms, patients identified several domains in which they wanted to experience improvements. These included: their perception of their self (e.g., self-esteem, self-confidence), physical symptoms (e.g., sleep, energy level), cognitive symptoms (e.g., social interest, cognitive distortions, motivation), emotional symptoms (e.g., mental pain, anxiety, sadness), and symptoms related to burden of suicidal thoughts. Regarding functioning, patients identified four domains in which they wished to see improvements. These included: elementary functioning (e.g., self-care, coping with daily tasks, autonomy), social functioning (e.g., social isolation, interpersonal relationships, family life), professional functioning (e.g., loss of job/studies, professional responsibilities), and complex functioning (e.g., coping with daily life, financial issues, personal growth).

Practice Implications

Clearly, patients, their loved ones, and those who provide treatment have a much broader view than researchers of what constitutes important outcomes to their mental health treatment for depression. The two most common symptom outcomes identified by patients were psychic pain and the burden imposed by suicidal ideation, yet these rarely assessed as primary outcomes in psychotherapy studies. And outcomes like social functioning, family relationships, and personal growth are not primary outcomes, and often they are not assessed at all in research studies. Clinicians would do well to take a broader view of what is important to patients, and to keep in mind their patients wishes as they develop collaborative goals for treatment with patients. It may be useful not only to use standardized scales to aid in developing treatment plans, but also to ask patients what they hope to gain from therapy should the treatment be successful.

December 2020

Psychotherapy for Those Who Do Not Respond to Treatment

Gloster, A. T., Rinner, M. T., Ioannou, M., Villanueva, J., Block, V. J., Ferrari, G., ... & Karekla, M. (2020). Treating treatment non-responders: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled psychotherapy trials. Clinical Psychology Review, 75, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101810.

Generally, there are a number of effective treatments for mental disorders including psychotherapy and medications. However, by some estimates, about 40% of patients with mood or anxiety disorders do not respond to these treatments. Research shows that patients who do not respond to initial treatments tend to have lower quality of life and higher mortality. By definition, treatment non-response indicates a failure of the treatment to achieve symptom reduction for patients. There is a research literature looking at the impact of introducing a subsequent treatment like psychotherapy for patients who do not respond to a previous treatment (most often a medication). In this meta-analysis Gloster and colleagues examined the efficacy of adding psychotherapy for patients who were not responsive to a previous treatment. They only included randomized controlled trials of patients diagnosed with mood or anxiety disorders. The authors found 18 studies of this kind that had 1734 participants. Most of the studies (80%) used medications as an initial treatment. The psychotherapies that were given to non-responders were quite varied including CBT, psychodynamic therapies, and DBT. The authors adjusted effect sizes downward for publication bias – or the estimated effects of negative studies that were not published. Even with that downward adjustment, adding psychotherapy after previous treatment non-response resulted in significant positive effect for patients in terms of reduced symptoms (SMD = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.75). Similar findings were noted for quality of life. However, there was a lot of variability in effects across studies. Better outcomes were not associated with a particular diagnosis or treatment type. The positive effects remained significant at follow up, but they did not hold up after adjusting for publication bias (SMD = 0.359; 95% CI -0.349, 1.068, p > .05).

Practice Implications

The findings of this meta-analysis are promising for using psychotherapy for those who do not respond to initial treatment, mostly with medication. Both symptoms and quality of life improved moderately with a second round of treatment. This is notable because treatment non-responders may experience frustration and demoralization, and these patients tend to have chronic conditions that cause significant impairment. An important caveat is that the evidence for longer term improvements may not be reliable, and so it is not clear whether the positive effects are sustained. Offering a patient a re-start of treatment may help them to establish new hope for recovery if the subsequent treatment is framed as something different from the previous interventions that did not work for them.
How Does Therapy Harm?

Curran, J., Parry, G.D., Hardy, G.E., Darling, J., Mason, A-M., Chambers, E. (2019). How Does therapy harm? A model of adverse process using task analysis in the meta-synthesis of service users’ experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 10:347. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00347

Forty to 60% of patients do not recover after a course of psychotherapy, and approximately 5% to 8.2% are worse off. In the National Health Service in the UK, 5% of patients reported lasting bad effects of therapy. Although these appear to be small percentages, they represent a large number of patients. In Canada for example, over 1 million Canadians use psychotherapy each year, so 5% would represent 50,000 individuals. Therapists, for their part are poor at identifying patients who deteriorate in therapy. In this meta-synthesis of qualitative research, Curren and colleagues aimed to derive a model based on patients’ experiences of the factors that lead to negative outcomes. They conducted a narrative review of qualitative research findings and of patients’ testimony from a number of sources. They noted eight domains identified by patients that are associated with adverse events in psychotherapy. First, contextual factors refer organizational issues that affect access to or choice of therapy, cultural validity of the therapy, and lack of information about services. Second, pre-therapy factors refer to poor pre-therapy contracting between therapist and patient, and therapists that focus on symptoms rather than the client as a person. Third, therapist factors refer to therapist inflexibility, and therapists’ financial interests that influence their decisions about therapy. Fourth, client factors refer to client lack of understanding of therapy, fear, and demoralization. Fifth, relationship factors refer to a poor relational fit between therapist and patient, therapists perceived as shaming, therapists misusing power, and clients not feeling heard or understood. Sixth, therapist behaviors refer to boundary violations, rigidly applying techniques, therapist acting out, and therapist passivity. Seventh, therapy process refers to the type of therapy offered not matching patient needs, and patients not agreeing with the techniques. Eighth, endings refer to short term therapies that “open a can of worms” without resolution, and the client feeling abandoned.

Practice Implications

Therapists would do well to ensure that the patient’s voice is heard when it comes to preferences and cultural validity of the treatment. In particular, therapists should not rigidly apply techniques focused exclusively on symptom reduction. Instead, therapists should see patients’ problems within their interpersonal and cultural context and focus on outcomes related to the quality of life of patients. Therapists must attend to developing and maintaining the therapeutic alliance (agreement on tasks and goals of the therapy, and the relational bond with patients). Any signs of disruptions or tensions in the alliance should be identified and repaired. Patients require information about the therapy, what it entails, and how it will end before signing on to a course of treatment. Organizations must remove barriers to accessing treatment and provide therapies that represent a range of orientations and foci to meet patients’ needs.

November 2020

Therapist and Client Emotional Expression: A Meta-Analysis

Peluso, P. R., & Freund, R. R. (2018). Therapist and client emotional expression and psychotherapy outcomes: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 461–472.

Emotions and emotional experiences are key to being human, and therefore are key to psychotherapy processes and outcomes. Emotion-focused therapy, for example, emphasizing helping clients to overcome their avoidance of emotions by exploring emotions in therapy in order to achieve change. Nevertheless, many therapeutic orientations focus on emotional expression, avoidance of emotions, emotional experiences, and understanding emotions as a means of helping clients to change and to have a better existence. Therapists of all stripes tend to work at creating a therapeutic context so that patients can have a corrective emotional experience. Primary emotions are universal and include happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, disgust, and anger. Secondary emotions are influenced by context and include embarrassment, guilt, and pride. All emotions and their experiences are influenced by cultural contexts, attitudes, and rules. A key aspect of psychotherapy includes helping clients to organize or make meaning of their emotions, and such therapeutic work is associated with positive client outcomes. In this meta-analysis, Peluso and colleagues evaluated the research on therapist and client emotional expression in psychotherapy, and its relationship to client outcomes. Thirteen studies found the effects of therapists’ expression of affect during therapy on client outcomes after the end of therapy had a mean effect size of r = .28 (95% CI: .17, .35), which was statistically significant and moderately large. The 42 studies that looked at client expression of affect during therapy and how it related to client outcomes after therapy found an average effect size of r = .40 (95% CI: .32, .48), which was also statistically significant moderately large.

Practice Implications

This meta analysis emphasizes that emotions matter in psychotherapy. The capacity of therapists to judiciously express emotions, and to help clients to experience and make meaning of their emotions is an important therapeutic skill. Therapists need to focus on and validate clients’ emotions, and therapists should encourage clients to understand and process (i.e., make meaning of) their emotions. This work must occur in the context of a safe, trusting therapeutic relationship. Meaning making and emotional resolution should be considered as key therapeutic goals for most therapies.

September 2020

The Reciprocal Relationship Between the Alliance and Outcomes

Flückiger, C., Rubel, J., Del Re, A. C., Horvath, A. O., Wampold, B. E., Crits-Christoph, P., Atzil-Slonim, D., . . . Barber, J. P. (2020). The reciprocal relationship between alliance and early treatment symptoms: A two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(9), 829–843.

The therapeutic alliance (patient and therapist agreement on tasks and goals of therapy and their emotional bond) is the most researched concept in psychotherapy. The research clearly indicates that a positive alliance reliably predicts patient outcomes in terms of reduced symptoms. However, researchers still debate whether the alliance is at all necessary. That is, some argue that the alliance is the result of patients feeling better early in therapy, and so the alliance is only an outcome of early symptom reduction. If that is the case, then the alliance is an artifact of symptom reduction, and clinicians need not pay much attention to it. In this meta-analysis, Fluckiger and colleagues collected 17 studies representing over 5000 patients that evaluated whether alliance in a previous session predicted outcomes in a subsequent therapy session, and vice versa. In other words, they looked at all studies that evaluated if change in alliance preceded change in symptoms and if change in symptoms preceded change in the alliance. What is unique about this meta-analysis is that they gathered patient-level data from the original studies. That allowed them to test the therapeutic alliance theory for each individual patient on a session by session basis for the first 7 sessions of therapy. (For the stats geeks out there, the authors analysed within-person [between-session] effects using multilevel time-lagged models). Their analyses found that high alliance at a preceding session was related to lower symptoms at the subsequent session (B adjusted = -.065 (95% CI [-.092, -.038]; p < .0001)), and higher symptoms at the start of a session was related to lower post session alliance (B adjusted = -.148 (95% CI [-.215, -.081]; p < .0001). They also found that patients who generally reported high alliance scores showed a stronger alliance – outcome relationship, and those with greater symptoms had a weaker alliance - outcome relationship.

Practice Implications

This meta-analysis is another indication of the importance of therapists and patients coming to a collaborative agreement on the tasks of therapy (what is done during sessions) and the goals of therapy (what issues to work on), and of their relational bond. The alliance is not always easy to establish – especially with regard to agreeing on goals. Also, the alliance should not be forgotten once established – alliance ruptures or tensions occur frequently and can have a negative effect on patients’ mental health outcomes. Patients of psychotherapists who repair alliance tensions generally have better mental health outcomes.

This month...

Type of Research

Topics

April 2021

Practice Implications

March 2021

Practice Implications

December 2020

Practice Implications

Practice Implications

November 2020

Practice Implications

September 2020

Practice Implications

Psychotherapy Practice Research Network (PPRNet)