Blog

Boswell, J. F., Constantino, M. J., Oswald, J. M., Bugatti, M., Goodwin, B., & Yucel, R. (2018). Mental health care consumers’ relative valuing of clinician performance information. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(4), 301-308.

Research has shown that some therapists are more effective than others both in terms of their overall effectiveness and in terms of their effectiveness with specific patient problems. Further, despite advances in medicine on this topic, there is little or no information provided to patients about a therapist’s track record on overall effectiveness. In any case, little is known about what patients value in psychotherapists and how much they are willing to give up in order to get what they value. For example, do patients prefer therapists who are highly effective for most problems, and would they be willing to tolerate a poorer therapeutic relationship in order to work with such a highly effective therapist? In this study, Boswell and colleagues employed a relative valuing procedure often used in economics to assess the relative value to patients of different therapist characteristics and performance. Patients were asked how much they were willing to give up on one therapist characteristic (therapist’s overall effectiveness with clients [i.e., overall track record]) in order to receive more of some other characteristic (therapist specific effectiveness in a problem domain, a better therapeutic alliance, lower cost of therapy). The study included 403 patients treated in mental health clinics in the U.S. Patient characteristics were typical of those seen in such clinics – predominantly they had problems with depression or anxiety, were 41 years old on average, mostly women (68.5%), and receiving individual psychotherapy (89.3%). In general, patients highly valued a therapist with a track record of general overall effectiveness. However, patients were willing to give up more of their therapists overall effectiveness if the therapist had a track record of successfully treating their specific problem (e.g., therapist A has lower general efficacy but has demonstrated greater specific efficacy for depression). Patients were also willing to sacrifice therapist general effectiveness in order to pay less for therapy (vs paying a higher fee for a more effective therapist), and in order to work with a provider with whom they would have a better therapeutic alliance (vs a lower alliance with a more generally effective therapist). Surprisingly, patients placed a lower value on factors like therapist gender and race. Younger patients put greater value on therapist performance data (i.e., their track record data), suggesting a generational effect in which younger clients tend to prefer to make decisions based on available data.

Practice Implications

Patients were willing to give up some therapist general effectiveness in order to work with someone who has a track record of being effective for their specific problem, who costs less, and with whom they could have a better therapeutic alliance. Fortunately, therapist general efficacy and domain specific efficacy tend to be highly correlated, and so patients may not have to choose between these. The findings also suggest that patients may be willing to see a therapist who is less generally effective if it meant they could have a good relational experience with the therapist. Research indicates that therapists are able to improve their outcomes and therapeutic alliances with additional training and deliberate practice.

Solomonov, N. & Barber, J.P. (2018). Patients’ perspectives on political self-disclosure, the therapeutic alliance, and the infiltration of politics into the therapy room in the Trump era. Journal of Clinical Psychology, DOI: 10.1002/jclp.22609.

Most studies of psychotherapy do not take into account the current political climate, and most therapists do not think about the impact of their politics on clients. Studies have focused on the effects of large historical-political events on therapy, but mainly in terms of client reactions to the events. Such studies typically assume that therapist and client shared or agreed on perspectives of the event. However, the 2016 U.S. presidential election was extremely polarizing and may represent one of those events in which clients and therapists do not agree. What if clients and therapists disagreed about the experience of the election and its aftermath – what might be the impact on their therapeutic alliance? To what extent are polarizing politics discussed in therapy, and how are these discussions experienced by clients? Solomonov and Barber conducted a national survey among 604 psychotherapy clients from the 50 U.S. states. The mean age of the sample was 33.82 years (SD = 11.10), 57% were women, 58% were Caucasian, 48% indicated that they voted for Hilary Clinton and 32% indicated that they voted for Donald Trump. Overall, 64% of patients indicated that they had spoken about politics with the therapist (66% of Trump supporters and 70% of Clinton supporters). Among Trump supporters, 38% of clients indicated that their therapist was a Republican, whereas 35% thought their therapist was a Democrat. Among Clinton supporters, only 14% said their therapist was a Republican and 64% perceived their therapist was a Democrat. Thirty percent of clients reported that their therapist explicitly disclosed their political views, and 38% of clients reported that even though their therapist did not explicitly disclose their political views the client could easily guess the therapist’s views. Clients who believed their therapist shared their political views reported significantly higher therapeutic alliance with the therapist than those who believed their therapist did not share their views. Clients who voted for Clinton reported significant increases in expression of negative feelings from before to after the election, whereas Trump supporters did not report a significant increase in negative feelings. Neither Trump nor Clinton supporters reported an increase in positive emotions pre and post election.

Practice Implications

About two thirds of clients in the U.S. have political discussions with their therapists, and almost half wanted to talk more about politics during sessions. Even though general self-disclosure among therapists is relatively infrequent, political self-disclosure among therapists about the 2016 U.S. election seemed to occur much more frequently. It is possible that political instability and the polarizing political climate in the U.S. may contribute to more self-disclosure of a political kind among therapists. This could have an impact on therapy. Clients who perceived their therapists to share political views reported a better therapeutic alliance than those who had divergent political views from their therapist. Similarities in values between therapist and client have long been known to be associated with the therapeutic alliance. The study demonstrates that in the current political climate in the U.S., client perceptions of shared or divergent values with therapists make their way into the therapeutic space.

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.

Love, M. & Farber, B.A. (2018). Honesty in psychotherapy: Results of an online survey comparing high vs. low self-concealers, Psychotherapy Research, DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2017.1417652.

An important task of psychotherapy is for therapists to provide a context within which clients feel comfortable disclosing difficult feelings, thoughts, and other experiences in their lives. Self-disclosure likely improves the therapeutic alliance (agreeing on tasks and goals, and an emotional bond between therapist and client), which is necessary for good outcomes. In fact, research indicates that client self-disclosure is generally associated with positive outcomes in therapy. And yet a number of surveys report that clients keep secrets or lie to their therapists. Clients appear to struggle between being honest and self-disclosing versus the fear or anxiety related to doing so. Research indicates that one can describe individuals as high self-concealers in most relationships in their lives. Such individuals consistently conceal negative aspects of themselves from others to help manage their anxiety in relationships in the short term. However, in the long term, high levels of self-concealment increases rumination and anxiety and reduces coping. In this study, Love and Farber conducted an online survey of 572 participants who were currently in therapy or were in therapy in the past year. The sample characteristics and the type of therapy they received were surprisingly similar to a nationally representative sample of clients who seek treatment, though this online survey sample was somewhat younger. Over 84% of clients in this survey reported being dishonest about at least one topic with their therapist. Most frequent topics for being dishonest included: details of sex life (33.9%), suicidal thoughts (21.9%), self-harm (14.5%), real reactions to therapist comments (18.9%), whether therapy was helping (15.7%), and family secrets (16.3%). The most predominant motive for dishonesty was embarrassment or shame (63.6%), followed by doubts that the therapist would understand (27.0%), fear of overwhelming emotions (18.1%), and disappointing or hurting the therapist (16.4%). Not surprisingly, clients who tended to conceal their experiences reported disclosing less distressful information and also reported a lower therapeutic alliance with their therapists. Almost half of high self-concealers reported that dishonesty hurt their therapeutic progress.

Practice Implications

Topics like suicidal ideation and sex are particularly difficult to speak about honestly in therapy, especially for those who are uncomfortable with disclosing in general. Most clients are willing to discuss difficult topics with therapists if the therapist inquires sensitively and directly. High self-concealers are highly attuned to how therapists might react, and these clients anticipate shame or judgement. Therapists need to monitor the state of the therapeutic relationship with each client, especially the client’s perception of therapist warmth and trustworthiness. This could include monitoring for any ruptures in the therapeutic alliance. Further, therapists may need to communicate that self-concealment serves a short term purpose to reduce anxiety, but has a long term cost in terms of amplifying distress.

Holmqvist Larsson, M.H., Falkenström, F., Andersson, G., & Holmqvist, R. (2018). Alliance ruptures and repairs in psychotherapy in primary care. Psychotherapy Research, 28, 123-136.

The therapeutic alliance is related to treatment outcome, so that a moderate amount of client improvement can be attributed to a positive alliance. More recent research on the alliance identifies ruptures in the alliance (i.e., disagreements on tasks and goals of therapy, or a tension in the relational bond between client and therapist) as predictive of poor client outcomes. Conversely repairing alliance ruptures (i.e., renegotiating tasks and goals of therapy, or repairing a strain in the relationship) is related to better client outcomes. Therapists can be trained to identify and repair alliance ruptures and this has a positive impact on clients. In this large study in a naturalistic primary care setting, Holmqvist Larsson and colleagues assessed how frequent alliance ruptures and repairs of ruptures occurred. They used a conservative definition of alliance rupture based on a meaningful decline in client self-reported measurement of alliance from one session to another. A repair of the alliance was defined as a return to previous levels of the alliance within 3 sessions after a rupture. Clients were 605 adults with depressive or anxiety disorders who received a variety of therapeutic orientations (CBT or psychodynamic) from one of 79 therapists. Ruptures with no subsequent repairs occurred in 10.7% of the cases, and ruptures followed by a repair occurred in 14.7% of the cases. Clients with more severe symptoms were significantly more likely to experience a rupture in the alliance with their therapist. Unrepaired ruptures were associated with poorer client outcomes, and repairing ruptures appeared to reverse the negative effects so that outcomes improved. In therapies of longer duration (14 sessions or more), a rupture-repair sequence was associated with even better outcomes than in those cases that experienced no rupture at all.

Practice Implications

About 25% of cases experienced an alliance rupture, even by this conservative definition of a rupture. Clients whose therapists were able to identify and repair the ruptures achieved the best outcomes, especially in therapies of longer duration. Therapists need to able to identify alliance ruptures, particularly in clients with higher distress; and therapists must be able to repair these ruptures so that these clients can achieve better outcomes. The results also suggest that the process of alliance rupture and repair may be highly therapeutic in and of itself.

Author email: mattias.holmqvist.larsson@liu.se

Westmacott, R. & Hunsley, J. (2017). Psychologists’ perspectives on therapy termination and the use of therapy engagement/retention strategies. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 24, 687–696.

The average psychotherapy client attends a median of about 3 to 5 sessions, which is substantially less than the number of sessions the average client needs to realize a clinically significant decline in symptoms. Premature termination (clients ending therapy unilaterally) occurs in 19% of cases in research trials and in as many as 38% of clients in community practices. And so premature termination is mental health problem for clients and an economic problem for therapists and agencies. Clients terminate therapy prematurely for a variety of reasons including: dissatisfaction with therapy or the therapist, achieving their goals, and practical barriers (appointment times, travel, cost). Therapists tend to underestimate the proportion of unilateral terminations from their practice, and underestimate negative outcomes and client negative perceptions of therapy and therapists. In this study, Westmacott and Hunsley, surveyed psychologists who provide psychotherapy (N=269) on their perspectives on their clients’ reasons for termination and the strategies they use to retain their clients in therapy. Therapists reported that 33.3% of their clients terminated prematurely, which is somewhat lower than the percentage reported in previous research. Most psychologists (65.7%) tended to attribute the most important reasons for premature termination before the third session to clients’ lack of motivation to change (rated as very important or important on a scale). A much smaller percentage (15.8%) attributed waiting too long for services as the most important reason for premature termination before session 3. The most important reason for premature termination after the third session was most often attributed to clients reaching their treatment goals (54.8%). Regarding strategies to retain clients - almost all psychologists (96.8%) indicated that they fostered a strong alliance, 74.3% indicated that they negotiated at treatment plan, 58.0% prepared clients for therapy, 38.7% used motivational enhancement strategies, 33.0% used client outcome monitoring, and 17.8% used appointment reminders.

Practice Implications

This survey of psychologists suggests that psychotherapists may somewhat underestimate the number of clients who prematurely terminate therapy. Psychotherapists may also overly attribute dropping out to client-focused factors (low motivation, achieving outcomes), rather than therapist-focused factors (dissatisfaction with therapist or therapy), setting-focused factors (negative impression of the office and staff), or practically-focused factors (appointment times, cost). Many therapists reported using alliance-building and negotiating a treatment plan to retain clients. However, few therapists used other evidence-based methods like systematic outcome monitoring, and fewer still used appointment reminders. Therapists should consider therapist-focused and setting-focused reasons for client termination, and to use outcome monitoring and appointment reminders to reduce drop-outs from their practices.