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 therapeutic skill in telepsychology versus face-to-face therapy, patient confidence and symptom improvement, and progress feedback.
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
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.
Does Mindfulness Lead to Greater Empathy Among Psychotherapists?
Cooper, D., Yap, K., O’Brien, M. et al. (2020). Mindfulness and empathy among counseling and psychotherapy professionals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 11, 2243–2257.
Just about every theoretical model of psychotherapy recognizes that therapist empathy is a necessary and fundamental component of treatment. A meta-analysis showed that higher therapist empathy as rated by patients was a moderately strong predictor of outcomes. Despite its importance, training programs in counseling, clinical psychology, and psychotherapy have not found effective ways of increasing empathy among trainees. Some might argue that more mindful therapists might be more attentive and accepting of aversive emotions and therefore more open to entering a client’s world or experiences. Rogers defined empathy as the capacity to enter into the private perceptual world of the other, and it involves taking another’s perspective and being emotionally moved. Measures of empathy assess dimensions such as personal distress, empathic concern, fantasy, and perspective taking. Mindfulness, on the other hand is defined by some as an open and receptive attention and awareness to one’s own present experiences. The theory is that having this receptive mindful attitude is necessary to develop empathy for others. If this is the case, then mindfulness training might foster a greater empathic attitude among psychotherapists and trainees. In this study, Cooper and colleagues (2020) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the relationship between dimensions of mindfulness and empathy among psychotherapy trainees. They also looked at studies that examined if training in mindfulness was associated with greater empathy among trainees. The results from up to 10 studies showed that greater levels of mindfulness were associated with less personal distress, r = − .42, 95% CI [− .55, − .27], and greater perspective taking, r = .28, 95% CI [.15, .40]. However, there was no significant relationship between mindfulness and empathic concern or fantasy. When aggregating the findings of the six studies that examined the effect of mindfulness training on increasing trainee therapist empathy, there were no significant effects on any of the empathy scales.
Practice Implications
This is not a well-developed research area because of the few studies and small sample sizes, and so results should be taken with a grain of salt. Meta-analyses clearly show that therapist empathy is important to patients and their outcomes. Higher levels of mindfulness were associated with greater perspective taking and lower personal distress. Mindfulness might help therapists to disengage from internal experiences and free up resources to be empathic to patients’ distress. However, the existing research does not support the use of mindfulness training to improve therapist empathy.
Adding Psychotherapy to Pharmacotherapy for Depression
Guidi, J. & Fava, G.A. (2021). Sequential combination of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy in major depressive disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 78, 261-269.
A sequential model of treatment suggests that one apply two treatments consecutively in order to reduce relapse of symptoms. This might include pharmacotherapy followed by psychotherapy, or vice versa. One reason to consider a second consecutive treatment for depression is that many individuals continue to have symptoms after a first treatment, and having residual symptoms is related to higher relapse rates. Another reason is that many with depressive disorders have comorbid symptoms of anxiety or other disorders, and so one course of treatment may not be enough for such complex situations. In this study, Guidi and Fava conducted a meta-analysis to examine if sequential combination of medications and psychotherapy reduced the risk of relapse for major depression. They reviewed 17 randomized controlled trials representing 2283 adult patients that examined the sequential use of psychotherapy following medications. The primary outcome was remission of depressive symptoms. The methodological quality of the studies was high. After adjusting for publication bias, the sequential approach was significant (RR = 0.885; 95% CI, 0.793-0.988), indicating that sequencing treatment resulted in a lower risk of relapse or recurrence. Continuing versus discontinuing medications during psychotherapy did not result in any advantage for patients. However, providing psychotherapy while continuing with antidepressant medications reduced rates of relapse and recurrence, RR = 0.821 (95% CI, 0.710-0.949).
Practice Implications
The chronic and recurrent nature of major depression is an important clinical challenge. The results of Guidi and Fava’s meta-analysis suggests that adding psychotherapy following pharmacotherapy, either alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, will reduce the risk of relapse from major depression. Discontinuing medications is reasonable after adding psychotherapy in order to help patients with major depression to stay symptom free. The results support the notion that psychotherapy results in patients acquiring skills to regulate their emotions, and that this might result in reduced relapse of depressive symptoms. Such skill acquisition does not take place with pharmacotherapy alone.
March 2021
Identifying Outcomes for Depression That Matter to Patients
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.
How Much Psychotherapy is Really Necessary for Clients to Improve?
Findings form psychotherapy research studies have tested a dose-response relationship that shows that after a certain number of sessions the rate of client improvement diminishes. That research tends to show a range of 4 to 12 sessions is necessary in order for the average client to improve (half of clients get better by this point, but half do not yet get better). The key limitation of this research is that the vast majority of it was conducted in student counselling centres offering brief treatments. That is, the clients in this research domain tend to be students with mildly to moderately severe problems, and the counselling centres often had a policy (not based on client need) that limited the number of treatment sessions. There is actually very little psychotherapy dose-response research of clients with moderate to severe problems who receive treatment in naturalistic settings that do not arbitrarily impose a session limit. In such settings, it would be the client’s optimal response to treatment and not externally imposed limits that determine when therapy is terminated. This study by Nordmo and colleagues was conducted in several psychotherapy outpatient clinics in Norway. The 362 adult clients had moderate to severe levels of mental health problems, and about half had a personality disorder. The 88 therapists had about 10 years of experience and used several major orientations of psychotherapy practice (psychodynamic, CBT, behavioral, humanistic). Clinicians and clients came to an agreement about when to terminate therapy, and so no limit on sessions was externally imposed. Outcomes were assessed regularly and were evaluated for reliable change and clinical recovery in symptoms and interpersonal problems. Clients attended an average of 52 sessions (SD = 59, Mdn = 36), and improvements were maintained up to 2 years post-treatment. The results indicated that the more sessions a client received the greater their improvement. This was particularly true for those clients with more severe problems. Clients with less severe problems needed fewer sessions to improve. The average client needed 57 sessions to show clinically significant improvement.
Practice Implications
The psychotherapy dose-response research to date is limited because it is primarily based on clients with mild to moderate problems treated in student counselling centres. In real-world contexts, client rate and magnitude of change are related to the length of treatment. That is, clients with moderate to severe problems will require more than 4 to 12 sessions in order to improve. As the authors argued, the one-size-fits-all approach to treatment length in everyday practice is not supported by the research, and does not provide adequate treatment to those clients with moderate to severe problems, or those with complex comorbidities.
Adding Psychodynamic Therapy to Antidepressant Medications
Depression is the single largest contributor to disability worldwide. There are a number of established treatments for depression including antidepressant medications and psychotherapies. One of the psychological treatments that is evidence-based is short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy (STPP). There is evidence in the general psychotherapy research literature that combining psychotherapy with antidepressant medications is more efficacious than providing medications alone. However, no meta-analysis has looked specifically at adding STPP to antidepressant medication. In this meta-analysis Driessen and colleagues analysed data from 7 studies that compare STPP plus medications versus antidepressant medications alone, or that compare STPP plus medications versus supportive therapy plus medications. Although the number of studies was small, the unique aspect of this meta-analysis is that Driessen and colleagues were able to get all of the individual level data from each study, so they were able to analyse data from 482 participants. Typical meta analyses only look at study level data (effects reported from the study as a whole) and not individual level data (effects for each individual who participant in each study). So, the results from Driessen and colleagues’ study provides a more precise and specific analysis of the findings. Combined treatment of STPP and antidepressant medications was significantly more efficacious than antidepressants with and without supportive therapy at post-treatment, but the effects were small (d = 0.26, SE = 0.01, p = .01). At follow up, combined treatment of STPP and antidepressant medications was again more efficacious than antidepressant medications and supportive therapy, but the effects were moderately large (d = 0.50, SE = 0.10). Other findings also suggested that STPP’s specific interventions provided significant added benefit over and above the non-specific effects of supportive therapy. The findings were consistent whether or not analyses were done on studies with complete versus incomplete data, controlling for baseline depression scores, and use or not of a treatment manual. Overall, the quality of the studies was good, and the findings were stable across studies.
Practice Implications
People with depression and their clinicians might expect better outcomes in terms of depressive symptoms if they combine STPP and antidepressant medications, rather than receiving medications alone. The benefits might be related to the specific interventions of STPP, which suggests that therapists may need specific training and supervision in order to make the most of STPP’s effectiveness.