Blog

Andrzej Werbart & Mo Wang (2012). Predictors of not starting and dropping out from psychotherapy in Swedish public service settings, Nordic Psychology, 64, 128-146.

There are few empirical studies looking at patients who are offered but who do not take up psychotherapy. This is a particularly important issue in publicly funded psychotherapy programs in which large numbers of patients who need mental health services to not access the service or leave before receiving adequate treatment. Evidence from the Improving Access to Psychotherapy (IAPT) program in the United Kingdom suggests that about half of patients who are offered psychotherapy either do not take it up or drop out prematurely and unilaterally. Knowledge about what determines treatment rejection or dropping out is critical in designing and developing publicly funded psychotherapy so that not only access but also patient outcomes are improved. In this study from the national Swedish psychotherapy program that is publicly funded, Werbart and colleagues looked at data from 13 clinics in which 189 therapists treated almost 1400 patients. Therapists were experienced (median experience = 5 years), and most received advanced psychotherapy training. Patients had a wide array of problems and severity. Of the patients, 13.6% never started therapy even though they were referred and assessed for treatment, and of those who started 17.4% dropped out of treatment. So a total of 31% never received adequate treatment and did not benefit for psychotherapy. Patients who never started therapy tended to be younger, unemployed, and with higher levels of mental illness. Patients who remained in therapy once they started tended to be older, had more problems with trauma or loss, and had more severe illness although they were not a danger to themselves or others. Never starting treatment and dropping out were both associated with clinics that had greater institutional instability. Clinic instability was defined as a clinic with: unclear treatment goals and guidelines, not well adapted to providing psychotherapy, unclear policies around who and how therapy is conducted, less cooperation among professionals, and financial problems.

Practice Implications

Jurisdictions around the world, including in Canada, are looking to offer publicly funded psychotherapy, yet there is little research to guide how to improve uptake and retention of patients within the system. Such systems might focus pre-therapy efforts to retain patients who are younger and with greater mental health problems. In particular, public systems need to pay attention to clinic and institutional stability. How patients experience the clinic environment (as welcoming and integrated), how treating professionals cooperate, the clarity and structure of treatment guidelines and goals, and the financial stability of a clinic all appear to have an impact on whether patients actually access and complete a course of psychotherapy.

Eubanks, C. F., Burckell, L. A., & Goldfried, M. R. (2017, December 21). Clinical consensus strategies to repair ruptures in the therapeutic alliance. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. Advance online publication.

Research is clear that the therapeutic alliance (i.e., agreement on tasks and goals of therapy, and the bond between client and therapist) is an important predictor of client outcomes across theoretical orientations. It is also clear that ruptures or strains in the alliance occur often and can have a negative effect on client outcomes. One can define two types of ruptures: (1) withdrawal ruptures, in which the client moves away from the therapist by shutting down, changing the focus, or not completing session assignments; and (2) confrontation ruptures, in which the client moves against the therapist so that the relationship quality is low, the client is not collaborative, and the client does not agree with the goals of therapy. Repairing alliance ruptures can have a positive effect on client outcomes, and therapists can learn to repair alliance ruptures. What are the best strategies that a therapist can use to repair alliance ruptures? In this study of expert consensus, Eubanks and colleagues surveyed clinicians in three broad and different surveys. In the first survey, the authors asked 330 professional social workers and psychologists from a variety of theoretical orientations to describe situations in which they encountered alliance ruptures in clinical practice. The researchers categorized situations described by clinicians as withdrawal ruptures or as confrontation ruptures, and then the authors selected those scenarios that best represented each type of rupture. In a second independent survey, 177 clinicians indicated how they would advise a colleague seeking consultation to respond to each scenario of a therapeutic alliance rupture. Clinicians generated between 35 and 45 strategies to repair each type of alliance rupture. In the final part of the survey, training directors in psychology and social work programs nominated peer experts to rate the strategies for alliance repair, so that 134 peer-nominated expert clinicians provided ratings. There was a high level of consensus among experts such that between 55% and 74% agreed on effective strategies to repair alliance ruptures. Experts agreed that during the session in which the alliance rupture occurred therapists should: explore and empathize with the client`s anger at the therapist, and validate or legitimize the client`s position on the issue related to the rupture. Experts also agreed that in future sessions clinicians can use other strategies like: helping the client manage and cope with painful feelings related to the rupture, helping the client clarify and explore their emotions related to the rupture, and exploring the meaning and patterns of problematic relationships outside of therapy.

Practice Implications

Experts agreed that the best strategies to repair therapeutic alliance ruptures were to deal with the therapeutic bond (e.g., explore and empathize with the client`s anger at the therapist) and to validate the client`s position on the issue related to the rupture. Other strategies like helping the client cope with their reactions and feelings, and exploring the meaning and patterns related to the client`s response were also rated as helpful. Less helpful strategies included therapists communicating about the limits of therapy, and therapist self-disclosure of their reaction to the rupture.

Swift, J.K., Greenberg, R.P., Tompkins, K.A., & Parkin, S.R. (2017). Treatment refusal and premature termination in psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and their combination: A meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons. Psychotherapy, 54, 47-57.

Treatment refusal occurs when a patient is offered an intervention but then fails to begin it. In treatment studies, this may occur when a patient initially agrees to participate in a trial but then discontinues immediately after finding out what intervention they will receive. In a clinic setting, a patient might call a mental health professional to schedule an initial appointment but not show up. This causes problems for the patient who is not receiving treatment, and for the professional who has an unfilled therapy hour. Premature termination, on the other hand occurs when a patient begins treatment but ends unilaterally against the provider’s recommendations and prior to recovery. Again, these patients typically do not improve and they do not receive an adequate dose of the treatment. Barriers to accepting or completing psychotherapy might include the cost, and the time and effort involved to engage in the therapeutic process. Barriers to accepting or completing pharmacotherapy might also include cost, unpleasant side effects, and fewer contacts with a non-judgemental listening professional. The aim of Swift and colleagues’ meta-analysis was to compare rates of treatment refusal and premature termination between psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. The meta-analysis included 186 studies, 57 of which (with 6,693 participants) reported data on treatment refusal. A significant number of patients (8.2%; 95% CI: 7.0, 9.6%) failed to start treatment after they were told what treatment they would receive. Participants were 1.76 times more likely (95% CI: 1.27, 2.45) to refuse treatment if they were offered pharmacotherapy compared to psychotherapy. The average premature termination rate from treatment was 21.9% (95% CI: 20.6%, 23.3%). Patients assigned to pharmacotherapy were 1.2 times more likely (95% CI: 1.03, 1.41) than those who were assigned to psychotherapy to discontinue treatment prematurely.

Practice Implications

Participants were almost 2 times more likely to refuse treatment if they were offered pharmacotherapy compared to psychotherapy, especially for social anxiety disorder, depression, and panic disorder. Similarly, premature termination was higher for pharmacotherapy compared to psychotherapy, especially for eating disorders and depressive disorders. Previous research indicated that patients are 3 times more likely to prefer psychotherapy over medications for mental disorders. Research indicates that mental health professionals should work to incorporate patient preferences, values, and beliefs when making treatment decisions in order to reduce premature termination and treatment refusal.

Wampold, B. E. (2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry, 14, 270-277.

What is the evidence for the common factors in psychotherapy and how important are they to patient outcomes? In their landmark book, The Great Psychotherapy Debate, Wampold and Imel cover this ground is some detail, and I reviewed a number of the issues raised in their book in the PPRNet blog over the past year. This article by Wampold provides a condensed summary of the research evidence for the common factors in psychotherapy, including: therapeutic alliance, therapist empathy, client expectations, cultural adaptation of treatments, and therapist effects. Therapeutic alliance refers to therapist and client agreement on tasks and goals of therapy, and the bond between therapist and client. A meta-analysis of the therapeutic alliance included over 200 studies of 14,000 patients and found a medium effect of alliance on patient outcomes (d = .57) across a variety of disorders and therapeutic orientations. A number of studies are also concluding that the alliance consistently predicts good outcomes, but that early good outcomes do not consistently predict a subsequent higher alliance. Further, therapists and not patients were primarily responsible for the alliance-outcome relationship. Another common factor, empathy, is thought to be necessary for cooperation, goal sharing, and social interactions. A meta-analysis of therapist empathy that included 59 studies and over 3,500 patients found that the relationship between empathy and patient outcome was moderately large (d = .63). Patient expectations that they will receive benefit from a structured therapy that explains their symptoms can be quite powerful in increasing hope for relief. A meta-analysis of 46 studies found a small but statistically significant relationship (d = .24) between client expectations and outcome. Cultural adaptation of treatments refers to providing an explanation of the symptoms and treatment that are acceptable to the client in the context of their culture. A meta analysis of 21 studies found that cultural adaptation of evidence-based treatments by using an explanation congruent with the client’s culture was more effective than unadapted evidence-based treatments, and the effect was modest (d = .32). Finally, therapist effects, refers to some therapists consistently achieving better outcomes than other therapists regardless of the patients’ characteristics or treatments delivered. A meta analysis of 17 studies of therapist effects in naturalistic settings found a moderately large effect of therapist differences (d = .55).

Practice Implications

These common factors of psychotherapy appear to be more important to patient outcomes than therapist adherence to a specific protocol and therapist competence in delivering the protocol. As Wampold argues, therapist competence should be redefined as the therapist’s ability to form stronger alliances across a variety of patients. Effective therapists tend to have certain qualities, including: a higher level of facilitative interpersonal skills, a tendency to express more professional self doubt, and they engage in more time outside of therapy practicing various psychotherapy skills.

Lindheim, O., Bennett, C.B., Trentacosta, C.J., & McLear, C. (2014). Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 506-517.

Giving clients a choice about treatments or to receive their preferred treatment might improve treatment outcomes. Preference usually means clients passively receiving the treatment they prefer. Choice involves clients actively making a decision about which treatment option to receive. Clients may also make informed or uninformed preferences and choices. Informed preferences and choices refer to providing clients with information or education about treatment options. Having a choice or getting one’s preference between two or more efficacious treatments might have several beneficial effects. For example, some research shows that treatment preferences positively affect therapeutic alliance, possibly because clients may enter treatment with a more positive outlook about what intervention they receive. Patients receiving a preferred treatment may also have better overall communication with their providers which may lead to better outcomes. In their meta-analysis, Lindheim and colleagues were interested in the effects of client preference or choice on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcomes. The meta-analysis included 34 different studies. Client preference or choice of treatment was modestly but significantly and consistently related to satisfaction, completion rates, and to client outcomes. Clients who were involved in shared decision making, who chose a treatment condition, or who received their preference had higher satisfaction, increased completion rates, and better clinical outcomes compared to clients who were not involved in the decision, who did not choose, or who did not receive their preference. Setting (inpatient vs outpatient) or diagnosis did not have an effect on these findings.

Practice Implications

The findings highlight the clinical benefits of assessing client preferences and providing treatment options when two or more efficacious options are available. Increasingly, two or more efficacious options are available for common mental disorders like depression and anxiety. Many times, patients prefer psychotherapy over medications, for example. However, whereas medication prescriptions for mental disorders like depression rose dramatically in the past decades, rates of psychotherapy use remained stable or slightly declined. For those disorders for which two or more treatment options have comparable efficacy, client preference should be the deciding factor.

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content and sections of the book can be read on Google Books.

Bohart, A.C. & Wade, A.G. (2013). The client in psychotherapy. In M. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6^th ed.), pp. 219-257. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Last month I blogged about the section in Bohart and Wade’s (2013) chapter that focused on client symptom severity and motivation. This month I focus on differences between clients and therapists on their perceptions of therapy processes and outcomes. In a previous blog (see June 2013), I reviewed a meta analysis that showed that given two equally effective treatments, clients should be given their preference in order to improve outcomes. Clearly, client perceptions and preferences are important, and perhaps more important than the therapist’s perceptions. Bohart and Wade (2013) reviewed a number of studies that demonstrated this. For example, studies show that client ratings of the therapeutic alliance predicted which therapists had better than average outcomes, whereas therapist ratings of the alliance did not predict outcomes.  In three other meta-analyses, client perceptions of therapist genuineness, empathy, and therapeutic presence were each more predictive of outcomes than the respective therapists’ assessments of their own genuineness, empathy, and therapeutic presence. Clients also value different outcomes compared to therapists and researchers. Most research on outcomes tends to focus on symptom reduction, but clients appear to have a broader view of good outcomes. In a qualitative study, clients focused on healthier relationship patterns, an increase in self-understanding that led to freedom from and avoidance of self-destructive behaviour, and stronger valuing of the self, in addition to symptom reduction. Others report that clients define good outcomes as reengaging in meaningful work and social roles, and restoring their self respect.

Practice Implications

Clients are more finely attuned to the therapeutic alliance than therapists, and perhaps are better at detecting relevant and helpful therapist stances. If you are interested in assessing therapeutic alliance or a therapist’s empathy, don’t ask the therapist, ask the client. This has implications for training therapists in helpful therapeutic relationship stances. Helping trainees find areas for continued development as a therapist (i.e., in terms of improving their empathy, genuineness, and therapeutic presence) may require asking their clients’ opinions. Client perceptions of therapist qualities are more relevant than therapist perceptions when assessing effective therapist relationship stances. Therapists should monitor client preferences, particularly if the client is having difficulty engaging in the therapy. If possible and reasonable, therapists should alter their relationship approach to a client based on client feedback. Regarding outcomes, therapists, researchers, and agencies should consider broader definitions of outcomes that are more aligned with what clients want and value. Improved self concept, improved relationships, and better social and work functioning may be just as important as symptom reduction for most clients.