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.

In this part of the chapter on efficacy, Wampold and Imel provide convincing evidence from numerous reviews of meta analyses that the average effect size of psychotherapy across diverse treatments and patients is about d = .80. This is a reliable figure and is considered a “large” effect by commonly accepted standards. Put another way, the average psychotherapy patient is better off than 79% of untreated clients, psychotherapy accounts for 14% of the outcome variance, and for every 3 patients who receive psychotherapy, one will have a better outcome than had they not received psychotherapy. In other words, psychotherapy is remarkably efficacious. These effect size estimates are mostly drawn from randomized clinical trials that are highly controlled (i.e., therapists are highly trained and supervised, patients are sometimes selected to have no co-morbid problems, treatment fidelity to a manual is closely monitored, etc.). Some argue that the context of these trials renders them artificial, and that findings from these trials reveal little about psychotherapy practiced in the real world with complex patients. How do findings from controlled clinical trials compare to everyday clinical practice? Wampold and Imel review the evidence from three areas of research: clinical representativeness, benchmarking, and comparisons to treatment as usual. With regard to clinical representativeness, a meta analysis (k > 1,000 studies) coded the studies for type of treatment setting, therapist characteristics, referral sources, use of manuals, client heterogeneity, etc. The meta analysis found that therapies that were most representative of typical practice had similar effects to what is observed in highly controlled studies. With regard to benchmarking, a large study (N > 5,700 patients) compared treatment effects observed in naturalistic settings to clinical trial benchmarks. Benchmarks were defined as scores on an outcome (e.g., on a depression scale) that are within 10% of scores reported in clinical trial research. Treatment effects in naturalistic settings were equivalent to and sometimes better than those achieved using clinical trial benchmarks. Further, therapists in practice settings achieved the same outcomes in fewer sessions than in clinical trials. With regard to comparisons to treatment as usual, a meta analysis (k = 30 studies) for personality disorders looked at studies that compared evidence-based treatments tested in clinical trials to treatment as usual. The meta analysis found that evidence-based treatments were significantly more effective than treatment as usual with moderate effects. These results suggest that when it comes to personality disorders, special training and supervision, which are common in clinical trials, might be beneficial.

Practice Implications

Wampold and Imel argue that psychotherapy as tested in clinical trials is remarkably effective such that the average treated patient is better off than 79% of untreated controls. The evidence also suggests that psychotherapy practiced in clinical settings is effective and probably as effective as psychotherapy tested in controlled clinical trials. It is possible that therapists who treat those with personality disorders may benefit from additional training and supervision to improve patient outcomes in everyday practice.

Cuijpers, P., Koole, S.L., van Dijke, A., Roca, M., Li, J., & Reynolds, C.F. (2014). Psychotherapy for subclinical depression: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 205, 268-274.

Subclinical depression refers to someone having relevant depressive symptoms but without meeting standard diagnostic criteria for a depressive disorder. Cuijpers and colleagues indicate that subclinical depression can be defined as meeting at least one but not more than four DSM core symptoms for depression. Subclinical depression is highly prevalent. About 50% of individuals with major depression have had a subclinical depressive disorder, and so subclinical depression may be a risk for developing major depression later on. Depression in general is associated with a high level of health and economic burden worldwide (see my June 2014 blog). Antidepressant medications are likely not more effective than a placebo in treating subclinical depression. Cuipers and colleagues examined whether psychotherapy is effective in treating subclinical depression, and whether psychotherapy reduces the subsequent occurrence of major depression. Cuijpers and colleagues report on a meta analysis of 18 studies of psychotherapy for subclinical depression representing 1,913 patients. Most of the studies were based on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In order to compare the effects of psychotherapy for subclinical depression versus psychotherapy for major depression, they also included 56 studies of psychotherapy for major depression. Psychological treatments had a small to moderate effect on subclinical depression (g = .35) that was statistically significant. Psychotherapy significantly reduced the incidence of major depressive episodes by 39% at 6 months follow up, and by 26% at 12 months follow up. The effect of psychotherapy for major depression (g = .63) was significantly larger than the effect of psychotherapy for subclinical depression (g = .35). No differences were found between CBT and other forms of psychotherapy for subclinical depression.

Practice Implications

The results of this meta analysis indicate that psychological treatment of subclinical depression is moderately effective, and may reduce the incidence of major depression in the longer term for some. Effect sizes of psychotherapy for subclinical depression were likely underestimated because the type of control groups used in these studies affected study quality. However, even after controlling for study quality, the effects of psychotherapy for subclinical depression were still smaller than effects for psychotherapy of major depression. Although the number of studies comparing CBT to other therapies is small, the findings are similar to other meta analyses that indicate that several psychotherapies are effective treatment options for depressive symptoms.

Xie, C.L., Wang, X.D., Chen, J., Lin, H.Z., Chen, Y.H., Pan, J.L., & Wang, W.W. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive behavioral and psychodynamic therapy for depression in Parkinson’s disease patients. Neurological Sciences, 1-11.

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative brain disorder that progresses slowly in most people. When dopamine producing cells in the brain are damaged or do not produce enough dopamine, motor symptoms of PD appear. Non-motor symptoms, including depression, apathy, and sleep disorders are also common so that in clinical settings about a 40% of patients with PD may have a depressive disorder. Depression is a top predictor of poor quality of life in patients with PD. Depression in PD is not well understood but may be due to neurobiological vulnerability and to psychological factors. Antidepressant medications are often prescribed for depression in PD but their efficacy is questionable. Xie and colleagues argue that long term use of some antidepressants may lead to worsening of some PD motor symptoms. In this meta analysis, Xie and colleagues examine the efficacy of brief psychological interventions, including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic psychotherapy for depressive symptoms in PD. Twelve eligible studies were included in the meta analysis representing 766 patients with a mean age of 62 years (48% men). As an interesting note, 9 of the 12 studies were conducted in China and 3 were from the US or UK. Six of the studies used CBT for depression, and the remaining used psychodynamic therapy for depression in PD patients. Control conditions were often “treatment as usual”, and varied from antidepressant medication (e.g., Citalopram), nursing care, telephone calls, or no treatment for the depression. The effects of psychological interventions compared to control conditions on depressive symptoms were large, and remained large even after removing outlier studies. Outcomes for psychodynamic psychotherapy were better than for CBT, although both interventions resulted in large effects. There were also significant positive effects of brief psychotherapies on cognitive functioning, but not on quality of life. The authors were concerned that the quality of studies was variable and that many studies demonstrated a risk of bias. Further, most studies did not report outcomes at follow up periods.

Practice Implications

Significant depressive symptoms commonly occur in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). As a result, overall quality of life may be reduced in patients with PD. Medications for depression may be complicated by the neurodegenerative nature of PD – that is, effects of medications on depressive symptoms may be small and their neuro-motor side effects may be intolerable for some patients. This meta analysis by Xie and colleagues of 12 studies suggests that better research on psychotherapy for depression in PD needs to be conducted with adequate follow ups. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that brief psychological interventions may represent viable and effective alternatives for patients with PD who have a depressive disorder.

Vos, J., Craig, M., & Cooper, M. (2015). Existential therapies: A meta-analysis of their effects on psychological outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 115-128.

Existential therapies are a group of psychological interventions that address questions about existence, and they assume that by overcoming existential distress, psychological problems may be decreased. Underlying existential therapy is the assumption that: people need a meaning or purpose, individuals have a capacity to choose and actualize this potential, people will do better when they face challenges rather than avoid them, and human experiencing is related to others’ experiences. Vos and colleagues list four main schools of existential therapies: Daseinanalysis which focuses on free expression and greater openness to the world; logo-therapies which are aimed at helping clients establish meaning in their lives through didactics, British existential therapy which encourages clients to explore their experiences, and the existential-humanistic approach which help clients face mortality, freedom, isolation, and meaninglessness. Vos and colleagues review the research literature showing that meaning in life and positive well-being are associated with coping with stressful life events including life threatening illnesses. In this meta-analysis, the authors review the randomized controlled trials of different types of existential therapies to assess the efficacy of the treatments compared to a control condition like social support groups, being on a waiting list, or receiving care as usual. They grouped outcomes into four areas: meaning in life, psychopathology, self-efficacy, and physical well-being. Their meta-analysis included 15 studies of 1,792 participants, 13 of the studies were with medically ill patients, and 10 of those studies were aimed at patients with cancer. Effects of existential therapy versus a control condition on meaning in life tended to be positive and moderate. Effects on psychopathology and self-efficacy were positive and small. The effects of existential therapies versus a control condition on physical well-being were not significant. There were no differences between the types of existential therapy, though the number of studies was small to adequately assess these differences.

Practice Implications

Clients seem to benefit from group therapy interventions focused on meaning compared to social support groups, being on a waiting list, or receiving care as usual. Medically ill patients who received existential therapy found greater meaning in their lives, and the effects were moderate to large. Their psychopathology and self-efficacy also improved significantly but effects were small. The quality and number of studies was not optimal which limits the confidence one can have in these findings. The authors conclude that despite the small number of studies, existential therapies that use structured interventions that incorporate psychoeducation and discussions on meaning in life are a promising treatment for physically ill patients.

Lemmens, L.H.J.M., Arntz, A., Peeters, F., Hollon, S.D., Roefs, A., & Huibers, M.J.H. (2015). Clinical effectiveness of cognitive therapy v. interpersonal psychotherapy for depression: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Psychological Medicine, doi:10.1017/S0033291715000033

Generally, I prefer to report on meta analyses rather than individual studies mainly because findings from meta analyses are based on a larger number of studies and so are more reliable (see my November, 2013 blog). However, this study by Lemmens and colleagues represents a large clinical trial of 182 depressed patients who were randomized to cognitive therapy (CT), interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT), or a no-treatment control condition. The size of the trial provided the study with enough statistical power to test a hypothesis of non-inferiority of treatments. (A statistical note: A study finding of “non-inferiority” between treatments is sometimes unreliable because it is easier to detect such a finding with a small or poorly designed study. Studies with larger sample sizes provide greater statistical power, which in part makes a non-inferiority finding more reliable). A previous meta analysis showed both CT and IPT to be equally effective interventions for major depression. However, none of the studies in that meta analysis had sufficiently large sample sizes to reliably detect non-inferiority of interventions, none reported outcomes after post-treatment, and none of the studies used a no-treatment comparison condition. In their study, Lemmens and colleagues provided 16 to 20 sessions of individual therapy (45 minutes in length) to participants who met criteria for major depressive disorder. CT was based on Beck’s model and focused on identifying and altering cognitions, schemas, and attitudes associated with negative affect. IPT seeks to understand the social and interpersonal context of a patient’s depressive symptoms, and helps the patient to solve the interpersonal problem or change their relation to the problem, which may result in a resolution of the depressive symptoms. The study by Lemmens and colleagues was well designed in which: patients were randomized to conditions (CT, IPT, wait-list), 10 licensed therapists were expertly trained (5 CT therapists, 5 IPT therapists), and the therapies were competently delivered. Depressive symptoms significantly decreased for patients in both CT and IPT conditions with large effects, and these findings remained stable to 5 months post treatment. There were no differences between CT and IPT at post treatments and follow up, and both treatments were more effective than the waitlist control condition. Half of the sample had clinical improvements in symptoms, and 37% of patients were without depressive symptoms at 1 year follow up.

Practice Implications

CT and IPT did not differ in the treatment of depression in the short (post-treatment) and long term (follow up). The study does not address why two very different treatments led to similar positive outcomes. The authors suggest two possible reasons: (1) different specific treatment pathways led to similar results, or (2) change was driven by factors common to both treatments like motivation and therapeutic alliance.

Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467-481.

In this wide ranging review of the Common Factors (CF) perspective in psychotherapy, Laska and colleagues tackle the complex issues of defining CF and describing the evidence. The authors argue that CF in psychotherapy are not a vague set of ideas that fit under the label of “non-specific factors” or “relationship factors”. They also state that there is an unnecessary dichotomy between the concepts of empirically supported treatments (EST) and CF. In EST, specific and brief manualized therapies for specific disorders are tested in highly controlled randomized trials. ESTs purport that efficacious psychotherapies contain specific techniques based on an articulated theory of the disorder, and a specific mechanism of change for that disorder (e.g., depression is partly caused by depressogenic beliefs and so CBT for depression specifically targets cognitive distortions). There are published lists of ESTs for many disorders. However, Laska and colleagues argue that there is little evidence of the specificity of these treatments. For example, in dismantling studies an intervention like CBT for depression is compared to a dismantled version that removes an “active ingredient” [e.g., by providing only behavioral activation as an intervention], with little difference in patient outcomes between the full and dismantled versions. Further, for a number of disorders, several therapies based on very different theories of the disorder and of change are equally effective. In contrast to the EST approach, Laska and colleagues describe the CF approach which focuses on factors that are necessary and sufficient for patient change across psychotherapies, such as: (1) an emotional bond between client and therapist, (2) a healing setting for therapy, (3) a therapist who provides a theoretically and culturally relevant explanation for emotional distress, (4) an adaptive explanation that is acceptable to clients, and (5) procedures that lead clients to do something that is positive and helpful. Nevertheless, CF does not provide therapists with a license to do whatever they want without considering the evidence of a therapy’s efficacy. Rather CF does encourage therapists to make use of specific factors found in ESTs and to practice with a purpose. In support of the importance of CF, Laska and colleagues review the evidence from a number of meta analyses that show that CF (i.e., alliance, empathy, collaboration, positive regard, genuineness, therapist effects) each account for 5% to 11.5% of patient outcomes. These are moderate effects. Specific ingredients of psychotherapies or differences between ESTs account for 0% to 1% of patient outcomes, which represent small effects.

Practice Implications

An excessive focus or reliance on empirically supported therapies (EST) may unnecessarily limit what the profession and funders consider to be evidence-based practice. A common factors (CF) approach provides scientific evidence for effective therapeutic practices that are necessary in addition to the specific treatments found in lists of ESTs. To be effective, therapists should be able to: (1) develop a therapeutic alliance and repair ruptures to the alliance, (2) provide a safe context for the therapy, (3) be able to communicate sound psychological theory for the client’s distress based on evidence, (4) suggest a course of action that is based on evidence, and (5) conduct therapy based on established theories of distress and healing. Laska and colleagues argue that systematic patient progress monitoring and ongoing monitoring of the therapeutic alliance may be an effective method of quality improvement of therapists’ outcomes. Progress monitoring may provide therapists with information about areas for continuing education to improve their patients’ outcomes.