Blog

Coming to a Consensus About Psychotherapy

Goldfried, M. R. (2019). Obtaining consensus in psychotherapy: What holds us back? American Psychologist, 74(4), 484-496.

In this thoughtful piece, Marvin Goldfried, one of the pioneers of psychotherapy research, discussed the lack of consensus that holds back progress in the science and practice of psychotherapy. He argued that there are three main blocks to moving the field forward. First, disagreement across theoretical orientations results in different language systems that prevents the field from learning of similarities or points of connection. At last count, there are over 500 schools of psychotherapy resulting in an absence of a common language. A lack of consensus and disparate languages means that identifying the key factors that may underlie the effectiveness of psychotherapy is difficult if not impossible. The second block to progress in psychotherapy practice and research has to do with the practice-research divide. Despite the large body of research on psychotherapy systems, many clinicians rely more on their own experience rather than the research evidence. Therapists also complain that research tends to be conducted by individuals who know little of the reality of providing clinical services, and so some of what is researched (e.g., short-term treatment packages of one theoretical orientation) may not be relevant to everyday practice. For their part, researchers have tended not to consult with or include clinicians in their research endeavors, thus resulting in research that is disconnected from practice. The third block is related to the disconnection between the past and current contributions. That is, psychotherapy schools and orientations tend to emphasize and reward what is new without acknowledging the historical, intellectual, and practical theories that preceded. As a result, there is a constant reinventing of the wheel and a tendency not to learn from past advances and failures. This creates a stagnation in advancing both research and practice. As one example of this phenomenon, Goldfried quoted the psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel in 1941 who described the effects of what we now call behavioral extinction. Yet Fenichel and his work is never cited by behavior therapy research, and so there is no opportunity to examine common underlying processes of change or the evolution of the concept over time.

Practice Implications

Goldfried ended this paper by suggesting how to move the field of psychotherapy forward. He suggested that rather than focusing on new approaches to treatment, the field should reward new knowledge grounded in research and that belongs to the field in general and not to a particular school, orientation, or person. The emphasis of research in psychotherapy should not be on who is right but on what is right. In other words, research questions should emphasize “What did a therapist do to make an impact?” For example, psychotherapy process research on the therapeutic alliance, stages of change, therapist interpersonal skills, empathy, and client factors focus on transtheoretical constructs that inform therapists on how best to work with particular clients. This PPRNet blog often summarizes psychotherapy research for its readers.

Sakaluk, J. K., Williams, A. J., Kilshaw, R. E., & Rhyner, K. T. (2019). Evaluating the evidential value of empirically supported psychological treatments (ESTs): A meta-scientific review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 500-509.

In the 1990s the Clinical Division of the American Psychological Association commissioned a Task Force to identify “Empirically Supported Treatments” (EST). The Task Force decided that psychotherapies that repeatedly showed statistically significant improvements over no treatment, placebos, or another treatment would be designated as “Strongly” supported. They also designated some treatments as “Modestly” supported or with “Controversial” support. The EST movement continues to have a great impact on the practice, research, and funding of psychotherapy. Time-limited, diagnosis-focused therapies, tested in randomized controlled trials became the “gold standard”. Clinicians are expected to practice these ESTs, research agencies focus funding on these models, and some governments and insurance companies provide reimbursements only for these types of therapy. The Empirically Supported Treatments (EST) movement redefined the practice of psychotherapy as short-term, symptom-focused, technically-oriented, and mostly cognitive-behavioral. In this meta-scientific review Sakaluk and colleagues asked: how good is the evidence for the ESTs? The authors were particularly concerned with the quality of the studies from a methodological and statistical point of view: how likely was it that these findings could be replicated, or how reliable were the findings? The good news is that there were few instances (about 10%) of research supporting ESTs in which researchers mis-reported the statistics (i.e., error in the reporting of statistical findings). This is quite a bit lower than previously identified mis-reporting rates (about 50%) in psychological research in general. However, only about 19% of ESTs were supported consistently by high quality studies. Over half of ESTs were supported consistently by poor quality studies. Most of the studies supporting ESTs were not sufficiently powered to detect differences between treatments or conditions. That is, often the sample sizes of patients in the studies were too small, and so the significant results were not likely reliable or perhaps not plausible. Also, those therapies that the EST list defined as having “Strong” support were not backed by more higher quality research compared to therapies considered to have “Moderate” support. In other words, the decision to designate treatments as “Strongly” or “Moderately” supported appears to have almost no relationship with the quality of the research.

Practice Implications

Embedded in this dense methodological paper are some troubling findings and important practice implications. The authors suggested that there are a number treatments on the EST list that have dubious research support because the studies of those treatments may not stand up to replication (a critical test in scientific research). It is not clear that ESTs are any more effective than other bona-fide psychotherapies that are not on the list. (Bona-fide psychotherapies are those that are based on a psychological theory, delivered by trained therapists, and in which the patient and therapist develop a relationship). The findings question whether dissemination of and training in ESTs to the exclusion of other psychotherapies can be justified given the quality of the evidence. In other words, it is possible that other bona-fide psychotherapies that are not on the EST list may be just as effective. This does not imply that psychotherapy is not effective or that anything goes when it comes to the practice of psychotherapy. Evidence-based practice in psychotherapy should guide psychotherapists’ clinical choices. However, the EST list is not the final word on what constitutes “evidence-based” practice in psychotherapy, or on what treatments should be researched and funded.

Nehrig, N., Prout, T.A., & Aafjes-van Doorn, K. (2019). Whose anxiety are we treating, anyway? Journal of Clinical Psychology. Online first publication.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychotherapy is defined by the American Psychological Association as the deliberate integration of: (1) the research evidence, (2) clinician expertise in making treatment decisions, and (3) client characteristics, preferences, and culture. The EBP statement was meant to supplant an older model of prescriptive psychotherapy practice that resulted in the creation of lists of empirically-supported treatments (EST). The ESTs were defined as: (1) manualized therapies, (2) shown to be efficacious in randomized controlled trials, (3) for patients with a specific diagnosed mental disorder. However, manualized therapies are not necessarily more effective than non-manualized treatments, and patients in randomized controlled trials may not represent those typically seen by therapists in everyday practice. Although EBPs are the current standard by which psychotherapists should practice, many therapists and organizations focus almost exclusively on the first of the EBP criteria (the research evidence of ESTs) to the exclusion of the second and third criteria (clinician expertise, and patient characteristics, preferences, and culture). In this review article, Nehrig and colleagues speculated about why this is the case by asking: “whose anxiety are we treating?” They argued that manualized therapies identified as ESTs reduce therapists’ anxiety caused by: uncertainty about treatment outcomes, the emotional toll of providing psychotherapy to people who are suffering, and the negative emotions (anxiety, despair, cynicism) that sometimes arises in therapists from the work. Nehrig and colleagues argued that ESTs provide therapists with a sense of control and certainty, while limiting therapists’ attention on relational challenges in the work of therapy. However, this emphasis on ESTs comes at a cost for therapists and patients. Therapists may not focus on developing skills to manage the relational challenges inherent in providing psychotherapy, greater certainty may reduce therapists’ engagement in sufficient self-reflection, and therapists may attend only to patients’ symptoms and not to the patient as a whole person. Nehrig and colleagues also discuss the preference for ESTs among institutions, insurance companies, and government funders of psychotherapy. ESTs reduce anxiety in these contexts because ESTs are seen by managers as methods to enhance accountability and standardization of treatment, to uphold standards of care, and to reduce potential liability. The short-term nature of most ESTs also assuages economic concerns for institutions and funders who wish to manage costs. However, this emphasis on short term manualized treatment also reduces psychotherapy from a complex interpersonal process with inherent uncertainty to one that resembles a clear-cut medical procedure that encourages top-down decision-making about clinical practice.

Practice Implications

Anxiety about the complexity of psychotherapy can cause therapists, institutional managers, and government funders to place greater value on ESTs rather than on clinical expertise of the therapist and patient characteristics. Patient characteristics, preferences, and culture are related to developing the therapeutic alliance and to patient outcomes. Astute therapists can learn to adjust their interventions to these patient characteristics, which may mean using clinical judgement to alter or deviate from a prescriptive manual. An EBP approach that integrates research, clinical expertise, and patient characteristics allows therapists to take into account transtheoretical factors known to affect outcomes like the therapeutic alliance, repairing alliance ruptures, empathy, and to use their clinical expertise to adjust their interpersonal stances to relevant patient characteristics, preferences, and culture.

Huey, S. J. & Tilley, J. L. (2018). Effects of mental health interventions with Asian Americans: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86, 915-930.

Do existing mental health interventions work well for patients of Asian descent? Interventions delivered in the typical way in which they were devised may not be as effective as intended when it comes to culturally diverse groups like Asian Americans. The clinical trials in which the treatments were developed typically are almost exclusively made up of White participants, and most evidence-based treatments do not consider cultural considerations. Culturally responsive psychotherapies that are consistent with the cultural norms, values, and expectations of patients may be more effective. That is, if an evidence-based treatment is not culture specific, it may not be as effective as intended. Even when culture is taken into account in evidence-based treatments, the accommodation tends to be for African American or Hispanic/Latino patients, and not for Asian American patients. Asian American and East Asian heritage is often influenced by Confucian values that emphasize interpersonal harmony, mutual obligations, and respect for hierarchy in relationships. This may mean that patients of Asian descent may be less committed to personal choice, more attuned to others, and more socially conforming. This may lead to cultural differences in cognitive processing and emotional reactions to interpersonal contexts. In this meta-analysis, Huey and colleagues assessed if the effects of evidence-based treatments will be bigger if the treatments were specifically tailored for Asian Americans. Their review included 18 studies with 6,377 participants. Samples included Chinese Americans, Cambodian Americans, Korean Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and other Asian groups. Problems treated included depression, PTSD, smoking, and other concerns. About half of the studies were of CBT, and most (91%) were culturally tailored in some way either for an Asian subgroup or tailored for minorities in general. The mean effect size for evidence-based treatments versus control groups was d = .75, SE = .14, p < .001, indicating a moderate to large effect. Treatments tailored specifically for Asian subgroups (e.g., Chinese Americans) showed the largest effects (d = 1.10), whereas treatment with no cultural tailoring or non-Asian tailoring showed the smallest effects (d = .25).

Practice Implications

Existing psychological treatments are efficacious for Asian Americans, with moderate effects. However, treatments specifically adapted for Asian American subgroups showed the largest effects, indicating that specific cultural adaptations could substantially improve the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Asian Americans face challenges in terms of using and engaging in treatments. Developing culturally specific interventions to improve acceptability of treatment may be one way to make the most therapeutic impact on one of the largest growing racial groups in North America.

Author email: hueyjr@usc.edu

Pomerville, A., Burrage, R.L., & Gone, J.P. (2016). Empirical findings from psychotherapy research with indigenous populations: A systematic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84, 1023-1038.

Indigenous people around the world have a higher incidence of mental illness compared to other ethnic or racial groups. These higher rates may be related to the historical effects of colonization and to current discrimination. Despite this, there is very little empirical research on psychotherapy provided to Indigenous peoples. Psychotherapy, as commonly practiced, has Eurocentric values by emphasizing individuality, independence, rationality, assertiveness, and by sometimes taking an ahistorical present-centered focus. These values may conflict with some Indigenous cultures that emphasize community, interdependence, mysticism, modesty, and the historical context of current functioning. Hence, psychotherapy as typically defined may require adaptations when used with Indigenous groups. In their review, Pomerville and colleagues examine what is currently known about psychotherapy with Indigenous populations. The populations studied in the existing research includes Indigenous peoples of the US, Australia, Canada, Pacific Islands, and New Zealand. There were no psychotherapy studies prior to 1986, and only 23 studies since then. Most studies emphasized some form of cultural adaptation of the treatment. The majority of studies focused on substance abuse, with only a few on anxiety and depression. Only two studies were controlled outcomes studies (i.e., randomized controlled trials considered by many to provide the best evidence from a single study). Research on individual therapy for Indigenous adolescents is completely lacking. The authors concluded that the efficacy of novel or adapted treatments or the generalizability of existing empirically supported treatments to Indigenous people are currently unknown.

Practice Implications

The virtual absence of controlled outcome trials of psychotherapies for Indigenous populations is serious gap in the practice of mental health interventions. This state of the research is particularly problematic given the high rates of mental illness and alarming rates of suicide among adolescents in Indigenous populations. Some studies found discontent among Indigenous communities with the current application of empirically supported treatments, and others argue that Indigenous healing be given the same legitimacy despite no controlled outcome research. On the other hand some authors favour training cultural competence among clinicians who practice standard empirically supported treatments. Pomerville and colleagues suggest that in the absence of evidence, tailoring psychotherapy to address the needs of Indigenous clients by taking into account specific practices of their communities may improve retention and outcomes.

Falkenström, F., Grant, J., & Holmqvist, R. (2016): Review of organizational effects on the outcome of mental health treatments. Psychotherapy Research, DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2016.1158883

Many psychotherapists treat patients within organizational contexts. These contexts might include university clinics, hospitals, primary care centers, community health centers, or even shared or group private practices. Psychotherapy researchers are often concerned with patient outcomes and predictors of outcomes like patient, therapist, or relationship variables. However, rarely do psychotherapy researchers consider the effects of the larger organizational context within which the psychotherapy is provided. On the other hand, many organizational psychology researchers are interested in organizational culture and management practices but seldom link these directly to patient outcomes. Is there an effect of the organizational context (i.e., culture and climate) on patient outcomes, and can we understand its effects in order to improve outcomes? Falkenstrom and colleagues review this literature. Organizational culture refers to shared norms, beliefs, and expectations in an organization or unit. These can be affected by hierarchical structure (i.e., perceived power differences between professions), managerial principles and styles (e.g., rigid vs lax styles, supportive and active vs undermining, micro-managing, or disengaged), and by technology. Various organizations appear to engender different cultures such that the staff can be more or less committed to the organization strategies and to the work itself. This is the basis of the well known expression: “culture eats strategy for breakfast”. Organizational climate refers to the overall sense of psychological security in a work environment. This may have an impact on workers’ attitudes and performance, and may also affect their willingness to report errors and to problem solve. In their review, Falkenstrom and colleagues found only 19 studies that directly assessed the effects of organizational context on patient mental health outcomes. Differences between organizations appeared to account for between 6% and 60% of patient outcomes. This is a very wide range that may be the result of many differences between studies (i.e., different patient populations, different definitions of outcomes, different definitions and measurements of organizational variables, etc.). However, even at 6%, this represents what most researchers would call a medium and meaningful effect. For example, Falkenstrom and colleagues reviewed specific studies and found that organizational climate (i.e., low conflict, low emotional exhaustion, and high cooperation and job satisfaction) were related to better psychosocial functioning in children placed in state custody. Several other studies showed that high staff turnover, low levels of support from leadership, and low mutual respect among professionals was associated with poorer mental health outcomes for a variety of patient populations. One study found that an intervention to improve organizational culture and climate resulted in improving mental health outcomes among children and adolescents.

Practice Implications

There are surprisingly few studies that look at the relationship between organizational culture and patient outcomes. Although limited, most of the studies point to the effects of organizational culture and climate on staff and on patient outcomes. With increased emphasis on quality control in mental health care, it makes sense for managers, practitioners, researchers and patient groups to carefully consider an organization’s managerial practices, leadership, culture, and climate when looking to improve patient outcomes.