Blog

Cieslak, R., Shoji, K., Douglas, A., Melville, E., Luszczynska, A., & Benight, C.C. (2014). A meta-analysis of the relationship between job burnout and secondary traumatic stress among workers with indirect exposure to trauma. Psychological Services, 11, 75-86.

The concept of job burnout was originally developed to document negative consequences of work related exposure to stressful situations experienced by various professionals such as police officers, paramedics, emergency room clinicians, etc. Job burnout can be defined as emotional exhaustion and disengagement. However, recent research on mental health providers has extended the focus beyond job burnout caused by direct exposure, to investigate the consequences of indirect exposure through contact with people who have experienced traumatic events, exposure to graphic trauma content reported by the survivor, or exposure to people’s cruelty to one another. These are sometimes referred to as secondary exposure or indirect exposure to trauma. Professionals indirectly exposed to trauma through their work could experience consequences or symptoms that have been conceptualized as secondary post-traumatic stress, vicarious traumatization, and compassion fatigue, which can collectively be called secondary traumatic stress (STS). STS may include three clusters of symptoms: intrusive re-experiencing of the traumatic material, avoidance of trauma triggers and emotions, and increased physical arousal. Compassion fatigue was defined as a substantial reduction in the mental health providers’ empathic capacity. Cieslak and colleagues (2014) conducted a meta analysis to assess the strength of associations between job burnout and other psychosocial consequences of work-related indirect exposure to trauma in professionals working with trauma survivors. They reviewed 41 studies that included 8,256 workers. The association between secondary traumatic stress (STS) and job burnout in professionals was significant and large. Workers were more likely to experience compassion fatigue and emotional exhaustion compared to PTSD-like symptoms and depersonalization, however, even the association with PTSD-like symptoms and depersonalization was moderate and significant. Both women and men were susceptible to STS, but the effect was larger in women.

Practice Implications

Burnout and other consequences of indirect exposure to trauma are likely to be high among mental health professionals. Burnout will affect professionals’ well being and quality of life, and will diminish their effectiveness with patients through reduced empathy and increased disengagement.  Mental health professionals who are exposed to secondary trauma should be aware of the potential for negative personal consequences, and assess their own level of emotional exhaustion, empathic capacity, and engagement. Mental health professionals should seek help if they re-experience the events, engage in avoidance of trauma triggers and emotions, and experience heightened arousal. Taking care of oneself through consultation with trusted colleagues, change in work contexts, social supports, and personal therapy could help to forestall compassion fatigue and burnout. Educational programs to improve self awareness and mindful communication may reduce burnout in mental health professionals.

Imel, Z. E., Laska, K., Jakupcak, M., & Simpson, T. L. (2013). Meta-analysis of dropout in treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 394–404.

There are now a number of psychotherapies that the Society of Clinical Psychology list as effective psychotherapies available for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Approaches include prolonged exposure (PE), and cognitive processing therapy (CPT) among others (click here for examples). Therapies for PTSD also vary in how much they focus on retelling the trauma. Some treatments like trauma-focused CBT place a higher level of focus on retelling the trauma event, whereas Present Centred Therapy (PCT), which was originally conceived as a control condition, largely avoids the trauma. Patients may begin a treatment and find some aspect of it distressing resulting in discontinuation. There is ongoing debate regarding the belief that exposure-based treatments, which require the patient to retell traumatic events in detail to his or her therapist, are especially unacceptable or poorly tolerated by patients. Drop out rate is a common metric used to assess tolerability of a treatment. In the April 2013 blog I reported on a meta analysis that found that the average drop out rate in randomized controlled trials of adult psychotherapy was 19.7%. However drop out rates for PTSD in the community can be as high as 56%. Imel and colleagues conducted a meta analysis of drop out rates in randomized controlled trials of treatments for PTSD. They also assessed if drop out rates differed by the amount the therapy focused on retelling the trauma. In the meta analysis, 42 studies were included representing 1,850 patients; 17 of the studies directly compared two or more treatments. The aggregated drop out rates across all studies was 18.28%, which is not different from the rate in randomized trials of adult psychotherapy in general, but is much lower than reported in regular clinical practice. Group treatment was associated with a 12% increase in drop outs compared to individual treatment. In general, an increase in trauma focus was not associated with greater drop out rates. However, when trauma focused treatments were directly compared to PCT (a trauma avoidant intervention) in the same study, trauma-specific treatments were associated with a twofold increase in the odds of dropping out.

Practice Implications

Many have been concerned that exposure-based therapies can lead to symptom exacerbation and result in dropout. The findings of Imel and colleagues’ meta analysis suggest that dropout rates are not significantly different among active treatments. However, PCT may be an exception to this general pattern of no differences among active treatments. Perhaps PCT should be considered a first line treatment for those who do not prefer a trauma focused treatment. In addition, providing treatment for PTSD in groups was associated with greater drop out rates possibly due to shame related to public disclosure of the trauma. The authors suggest mimicking research trial procedures in community practice in order to reduce drop out rates, such as: providing therapist training, support, and supervision; careful patient screening; regular assessment of patient progress; and ongoing contact with assistants that may promote session attendance.

Author email: zac.imel@utah.edu

Laska, K. M., Smith, T. L., Wislocki, A. P., Minami, T., & Wampold, B. E. (2013). Uniformity of evidence-based treatments in practice? Therapist effects in the delivery of cognitive processing therapy for PTSD. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 31-41.

Some therapists are more effective than others. Why, and how can we improve therapist effectiveness? Previous researchers estimates that differences among therapists account for 8% of the outcome variance, which is as big or a bigger effect than differences between treatment types. Some argue that training and supervising therapists in evidence-based treatments (EBTs) can reduce differences between therapists. But if training in EBTs does not reduce differences, what are the therapist factors we should be focusing on to improve outcomes? A study by Laska and colleagues (2013) addresses some of these issues. In their study, 25 therapists (psychologists and social workers) in Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals were trained by a nationally recognized trainer in cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and they treated 192 veterans. Therapists were trained to a standard level of competence in CPT, and they were supervised weekly by a certified expert in CPT. Differences between therapists’ effectiveness accounted for 12% of the outcome variance. In other words training and supervision in CPT did not appear to reduce differences between therapists, so that some therapists remained significantly more (or less) effective than others. The CPT expert supervisor was able to identify the more effective therapists even though she was blind to patient outcomes. She was also asked to list the qualities of these more successful therapists. Four areas emerged from the qualitative analysis of the supervisor interviews. (1) Reducing Avoidance – i.e., therapists’ ability to skilfully address patient avoidance of difficult areas or avoidance of therapy assignments, and not to collude with client avoidance; (2) Language in Supervision – i.e., therapists’ willingness to discuss struggles with cases, openness to discussing their contribution to impasses, and non-defensiveness in response to supervisor feedback; (3) Flexible Interpersonal Style – i.e., therapists’ ability both to join with and to challenge patients, to flexibly apply the manual so that they did not miss important interpersonal events in the therapy, but at the same time not to stray too far from the manual; and (4) Strong Therapeutic Alliance –i.e., therapists’ genuineness with patients, ability to develop a bond, and to agree with patients on tasks and goals of therapy.

Practice Implications

Creating a culture within a practice setting in which therapists are routinely provided feedback about their clients’ ongoing progress and about the therapeutic relationship has the potential to improve patient care. Therapists’ ability to handle interpersonally challenging encounters with patients is what distinguishes the most competent therapists from others. Training and supervision of therapists should focus on facilitative interpersonal skills as well as on the specific treatment protocol.

Author email: Kevin.Laska2@va.gov