Blog

The Psychotherapy Practice Research Network (PPRNet) blog began in 2013 in response to psychotherapy clinicians, researchers, and educators who expressed interest in receiving regular information about current practice-oriented psychotherapy research. It offers a monthly summary of two or three published psychotherapy research articles. Each summary is authored by Dr. Tasca and highlights practice implications of selected articles. Past blogs are available in the archives. This content is only available in English.

April 2016

How Important are the Common Factors in Psychotherapy?

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.
Patient Experience of Negative Effects of Psychotherapy

Crawford, M.J., Thana, L., Farquharson, L., Palmer, L., Hancock, E.... Parry, G.D. (2016). Patient experience of negative effects of psychological treatment: results of a national survey. British Journal of Psychiatry, 208, 260-265.

There is lots of evidence that psychotherapy is effective for a wide variety of disorders. However, a number of studies report that between 5% and 10% of patients report higher levels of symptoms following treatment compared to when they started. Although the side effects and negative outcomes in pharmacological treatment studies are routinely reported, negative outcomes in psychological treatment studies are rarely reported and investigated. In this very large survey, Crawford and colleagues analysed data from an audit of state funded psychological therapies for depression and anxiety in England and Wales. Adult patients from 220 centers were invited to complete an anonymous service-user questionnaire that asked about their experiences of the processes and outcomes of psychotherapy. Some of the questions asked if clients experienced a “lasting bad effect” from the treatment. Nearly 15,000 individuals responded to the survey. More than half (51%) were treated with cognitive behavioral therapy, and most clients received only one treatment, which was predominantly individual therapy. Most (74.35%) received fewer than 10 sessions. Of the respondents, 763 (5.23%) reported that therapy had a “lasting bad effect”, and an additional 7.70% were “unsure” whether they experienced a lasting bad effect. People over 65 years old were less likely to have a lasting negative effect, and those from minority ethnic groups and non-heterosexuals were more likely to report lasting bad effects. In addition, those who did not know what type of therapy they received were more likely to have lasting bad effects.

Practice Implications

A substantial minority of patients reported lasting negative effects from their psychological treatment. With approximately a million Canadians receiving outpatient psychological treatment of one form or another each year, these findings imply that thousands of patients could have experienced a lasting negative effect. The findings suggest that psychotherapists need to be highly sensitive to cultural and ethnic minority issues and acquire cultural competence. The same is true when treating non-heterosexuals. Clinicians should also make sure to provide sufficient information to patients about the type of treatment they are receiving as part of the informed consent process. Attending to these issues may reduce the likelihood of therapeutic alliance ruptures that may be related to lasting negative effects.
Nonimproved Patients View Their Psychotherapy

Werbart, A., Von Below, C., Brun, J., & Gunnarsdottir, H. (2015). “Spinning one’s wheels”: Nonimproved patients view their psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 546-564.

The rate of patients who experience no change after receiving psychotherapy is about 35% to 40% in clinical trials. Further, about 5% to 10% get worse after treatment. So, in spite of the fact that psychotherapy is effective in general, a sizeable minority of patients do not benefit. There is also evidence that patients’ perception of therapy differs greatly from their therapists’. Therapists are often inaccurate in identifying or predicting patient outcomes, and patients’ judgements tend to better correspond with treatment outcomes. In this study, Werbart and colleagues evaluated outcomes of 134 patients who had elevated symptoms. The average age of patients was 22.4 years (range 18 – 26), so many were young adults. Almost all received a diagnosis ranging from depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, or personality disorders. The predominant treatment was psychoanalytic. Of the 134 patients, many experienced large improvements by the end of treatment. However, 20 patients remained clinically distressed and did not improve or deteriorated after receiving psychotherapy. The authors interviewed these 20 patients at termination and at three-year follow-up using a semi-structured interview. The interview asked patients for their experiences of therapy. The researchers transcribed the interviews and coded the transcripts using a known method of qualitative analysis called “grounded theory”. Three main themes related to poor outcomes were identified by these patients. (1) The therapy or therapist – in which: therapists were perceived by patients as passive or reticent, patients felt distant from the therapist, and patients did not understand the therapy method. (2) Outcomes of therapy – in which: the patient expected more from therapy, and symptoms and emotional problems remained in the “impaired” range at the end of treatment. (3) The impact of life circumstances – referring to negative impacts of events outside of the therapy.

Practice Implications

This is a small but unique study that interviewed patients who did not benefit from psychotherapy about their experiences of the treatment and therapist. Nonimproved patients described their therapist generally as too passive, distant, and uninvolved in the work of therapy. These patients described difficulty understanding the therapeutic method and the nature of the therapeutic relationship. The findings highlight the importance of the therapeutic alliance. To have a good alliance, patients and therapists have to agree on the tasks of therapy, agree on the goals that the therapy should achieve for the patient, and there should be a mutual liking or bond between patient and therapist. Those patients whose therapists pay attention to and foster a good alliance are more likely to experience good outcomes.

March 2016

Do Psychotherapists Improve with Experience?

Goldberg, S.B., Rousmaniere, T., Miller, S.D., Whipple, J., Nielsen, S.L., Hoyt, W.T., & Wampold, B.E. (2016). Do psychotherapists improve with time and experience? A longitudinal analysis of outcomes in a clinical setting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 1-11.

Do therapists get better in providing psychotherapy as they gain more experience? This is a long standing question in psychotherapy, and most studies that compare therapists of different experience levels have not provided encouraging findings. This large longitudinal study in a practice setting by Goldberg and colleagues is unique because they follow therapists over a number of years during their careers. That is, the authors do not focus on outcome differences between therapists with different levels of experience, but rather they see if a therapist improves over time as the therapist accrues experience. Data were collected on 170 therapists and 6,591 patients over 18 years in a large practice in the U.S. Patients were distressed adults who attended an average of 8 sessions (range = 3 to 153) across 13 weeks. Over the 18 years of the study, on average therapists saw 39 patients, saw their first patient of the study after their 5^th year post graduate school, and had been working at the practice for about 5 years. On average patients got better, so that their psychological symptoms declined significantly over the course of treatment (i.e., 50% reliably improved). These rates of improvement are similar to benchmarks set in clinical trials. Contrary to expectations, therapists tended to have slightly poorer patient outcomes as the therapists gained experience. This result remained significant even when patient baseline severity, therapist caseload size, and other factors were controlled. However, more experienced therapists tended to have fewer early unplanned terminations (< 2 sessions) than less experienced therapists.

Practice Implications

This is the first large longitudinal study that followed therapists over several years of their career. Therapists became less effective over time, although the magnitude of the deterioration was very small. At the very least, one can say that patients did not achieve better outcomes as their therapists became more experienced. The authors note that the results of this study are in contrast to a large therapist survey in which most practitioners reported that their skills improved with passing time, and in contrast to another study in which therapists tended to over-estimate their effectiveness and under-recognize failing cases. Ways for therapists to improve their skills and patient outcomes might include: engaging in regular progress monitoring, targeted learning of fundamental therapeutic skills, training with standardized patients, and setting aside time for reflection and clinical consultation.
Does Clinician Confidence Lead to Accurate Clinical Judgement?

Miller, D.J., Spengler, E.S., & Spengler, P.M. (2015). A meta-analysis of confidence and judgement accuracy in clinical decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 553-567.

People can make errors in judgements based on decision making rules that are biased. Clinicians also may be prone to making such errors. In their Nobel Prize winning work, Kahneman and Tversky outlined a number of heuristics (i.e., mental shortcuts) that lead to cognitive biases, which in turn affect accuracy of decisions. For example, when making a differential diagnosis clinicians may: rely too heavily on only one piece of information which may be the most available (e.g., “I vividly remember a patient with conversion disorder who had the same history”); or ignore that a particular event (e.g., conversion disorder) is very rare; or seek confirming rather than disconfirming evidence (e.g., the patient has PTSD symptoms that can explain some symptoms). Complicating these biases is the tendency for clinicians to be over-confident. For example, in one study the average psychotherapist rated their performance as better than 80% of their peers, and no therapist rated him or herself in the lower 50^th percentile among peers. In their meta analysis, Miller and colleagues reviewed 36 studies of the relationship between clinician confidence ratings and accuracy of decisions among 1,485 clinicians. The authors were particularly interested in the overconfidence bias, which occurs when individuals report higher confidence in their judgments than is warranted by their actual accuracy. For example, studies have assessed the impact of clinician confidence on clinical accuracy in: detecting random responding on a psychological test, diagnosing a brain disorder verified by medical test using neuropsychological test data, predicting future violence and recidivism in offenders, and patient progress in psychotherapy. Most studies find that clinicians are quite confident in their judgments. But, is this confidence warranted? Miller and colleagues’ meta analysis found a significant but small (r = .15) association between confidence and accuracy. This suggests that clinician confidence is only slightly indicative of decision-making accuracy. The effect was a little larger for more experienced clinicians (r = .25), indicating that more experience and training resulted in somewhat more consistency between a clinician’s confidence and their clinical accuracy. Further, higher confidence leads to poorer accuracy when clinicians have to make repeated decisions without feedback, when feedback is not written, and when an event is rare.

Practice Implications

Clinicians, like everyone else, are sometimes subject to making errors when they only look at confirming evidence, when they rely only on their own memory rather than objective data, and when they are over-confident. Accuracy can be increased when clinicians use decision-making aids that provide quality corrective feedback. Aids to help in decision making might include the use of: objective standardized test data, repeated measurements with feedback to assess patient progress in psychotherapy, and actively looking for disconfirming evidence before making a clinical judgement. As the authors conclude, confidence is not a good substitute for accuracy.
Psychotherapists Matter When Evaluating Treatment Outcomes

Owen, J., Drinane, J. M., Idigo, K. C., & Valentine, J. C. (2015). Psychotherapist effects in meta-analyses: How accurate are treatment effects? Psychotherapy, 52(3), 321-328.

One of the ongoing debates in the psychotherapy research literature has to do with the relative efficacy of psychotherapies. Is psychotherapy brand A (CBT, for example) more effective than psychotherapy brand B (psychodynamic therapy, for example)? The most common way to test this question is with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which clients are randomly assigned to treatment condition (brand A or B). This study design controls for systematic bias in the results that may be caused by differences between clients. But what about therapists? We know for example that therapist effects (i.e., differences between therapists) account for approximately 5% to 10% of client outcomes. Therapist effects are often larger than the effect of the empirically supported treatment that is being offered. Yet it is almost unheard of for therapists to be randomized to treatments, so therapist effects are not controlled in most psychotherapy trials. As a result the effects of the differences between therapists get statistically rolled into the treatment effects. As Owen and colleagues point out, the impact of not controlling for therapist effects is that some differences between treatments in an RCT will appear statistically significant when in fact they are not. One can control for the effect of therapist differences, thus providing a more accurate estimate of treatment effects, but this is rarely done in published RCTs. So, when these RCTs are summarized in a meta analysis, the meta analysis results are also affected by ignoring therapist effects. In their study, Owen colleagues did something very clever. They took data from 17 recent meta analyses of RCTs that found differences between two interventions. These included meta analyses of studies comparing: CBT vs alternative treatments, bona fide treatments vs non-bona fide treatments, culturally adapted treatments vs those that were not adapted, etc. There are many other meta analyses that show no differences between treatments, but the authors wanted to focus specifically on the 17 that did show differences. Owen and colleagues statistically estimated what would happen to the original study findings of significant differences between treatments if therapist effects on patient outcomes were controlled. They controlled for three different sizes of therapist effects that accounted for: 5% (small), 10% (medium), or 20% (large) of patient outcomes. Even small therapist effects (5%) reduced the number of significant differences between treatments from 100% to 80%. When psychotherapist effects were estimated to be medium (10% - which is the best estimate based on research), the number of significant differences between treatments dropped to 65%. For large therapist effects (20%), the number of significant treatment differences was only 35%.

Practice Implications

I have argued previously that the psychotherapist matters. Placing more time and effort in developing good reflective practice based on quality information and developing therapist skills like empathy, progress monitoring, and identifying and repairing alliance ruptures will result in better patient outcomes. As Owen and colleagues note, when reading an RCT that claims to find significant differences between psychotherapies, ask yourself if they took into account the effects of differences between therapists.

This month...

Type of Research

Topics

April 2016

Practice Implications

Practice Implications

Practice Implications

March 2016

Practice Implications

Practice Implications

Practice Implications

Psychotherapy Practice Research Network (PPRNet)