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.

Bradley, R., Greene, J., Russ, E., Dutra, L., & Westen, D. (2005). A multidimensional meta-analysis of psychotherapy for PTSD. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 214–227.

The psychotherapy research literature on treatment of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has focused on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT, with exposure and/or cognitive restructuring) and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). Exposure therapy involves confronting memories of the trauma or cues related to the traumatic event. Other CBT skills include developing skills for anxiety management or challenging distorted cognitions. In EMDR the patient is asked to develop an image of the traumatic event while tracking a bilateral stimulus. Most studies demonstrate the effectiveness of CBT for PTSD in the short term. However, many studies have excluded patients with comorbid conditions. For example, patients with PTSD often also have significant other symptoms like depression, substance abuse, other anxiety disorders, and personality disorders. In this meta analysis, Bradley and colleagues were interested in documenting the overall efficacy of psychological treatments for PTSD. They also wanted to report on any evidence on the long term efficacy of treatments for PTSD, and on evidence of the effects of excluding patients with comorbid disorders. Bradley and colleagues included randomized controlled trials published between 1980 and 2003 (i.e., 26 studies representing 1,535 patients). Also, they looked at outcomes defined in a few ways: change in symptoms as documented by the effect size, proportion of patients no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for PTSD (but who may have residual symptoms), and proportion whose symptoms improved significantly. Across all treatments, the average pre to post effect size was large (d = 1.43), and comparisons to control conditions were also large (d = .83). The results suggested that psychotherapy produced substantial effects for PTSD. Differences between types of therapy (CBT, CBT with exposure, EMDR) were negligible. Fifty six percent of patients no longer met criteria for PTSD, and 65% showed improved symptoms. At follow ups, 62% no longer met diagnostic criteria for PTSD and 32% were deemed improved, but the number of studies with follow up data were small (k = 10) and so the results could be unreliable. Of those who started treatment, 78.9% completed the therapy. Of those who were assessed, 30% were excluded because of suicide risk, drug or alcohol abuse, or “other serious comorbidity”.

Practice Implications

Treatment guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies list a number of effective treatments for PTSD. The evidence for efficacy is strongest at post treatment, and more research is necessary to demonstrate efficacy in the longer term. There is currently little evidence that any one treatment approach is more effective than another, and some researchers are debating whether specific interventions like exposure is necessary to treat PTSD. Bradley and colleagues argue that we need more research on alternative treatments for PTSD and research on patients with multiple symptoms and comorbidities.

Author email: rbradl2@emory.edu

Angus, L., Watson, J.C., Elliott, R., Schneider, K., & Timulak, L. (2015) Humanistic psychotherapy research 1990–2015: From methodological innovation to evidence-supported treatment outcomes and beyond. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 330-347.

In this wide-ranging review, Angus and colleagues provide an overview of humanistic psychotherapy research from 1990-2015. For this blog I will focus on the efficacy research that they review. Humanistic psychotherapy addresses how people can come to know themselves and each other, and to fulfill their aspirations. This type of therapy emphasizes the personal, interpersonal, and contexts within which clients reflect on their relationships with the self, others, and the world. Carl Rogers is probably the best known early proponent of humanistic client centred psychotherapy. Humanistic psychotherapy focuses on a genuinely empathic therapeutic relationship to promote in-therapy client emotional experiencing, emphasizes meaning-making, and is person-centred. One of the questions raised by Angus and colleagues was: are humanistic psychotherapies efficacious. Here they mainly summarize a previous review by Elliot and colleagues (2013). In a meta analysis of 191 studies and over 14,000 clients, humanistic psychotherapies are associated with large pre to post therapy client change (g = .93) which are maintained over early (< 12 months) and late (> 12 months) follow ups. Further, in 31 studies of over 2,000 clients, those who received humanistic therapies show large gains compared to those who receive no treatment (g = .76). In 100 studies of over 6,000 clients, humanistic therapies had equivalent outcomes to other therapies (g = .01), including CBT (22 studies, g = -.06). Humanistic therapy was most effective for interpersonal/relational trauma, and depression (for which it is considered an evidence supported treatment). There is also good evidence for the efficacy of humanistic therapy for psychotic conditions. However, humanistic therapies may be less effective than CBT for anxiety problems.

Practice Implications

Humanistic psychotherapy that focuses on a genuinely empathic therapeutic relationship that emphasizes client emotional experiencing and meaning-making is efficacious for a number of mental health problems. Rogers argued that non-judgemental acceptance, warmth, and congruence were necessary for good client outcomes, and an accumulating body of research is supporting these early propositions. The evidence for the importance of therapist empathy to improve client outcomes is particularly compelling.

Author email: langus@yorku.ca

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