Blog

Community and Mental Health Team, Health and Social Care Information Centre (2015). Psychological therapies; Annual report on the use of IAPT services: England 2014/15.

There have been calls from mental health professional organizations and by the media to provide publicly funded psychotherapy in Canada. Rates of common mental disorders in Canada are high, such that about 20% of the population will personally experience a mental illness in their lifetime. In 1998, the estimated direct and indirect economic cost of mental illness in Canada was $7.9 billion (all figures are in Canadian dollars). Current estimates of costs to fund a public psychotherapy service in Canada may be about $1 billion to $2.8 billion – which far outweighs the cost. Most outpatient psychotherapy in Canada is provided by professionals in private practice who charge somewhere between $100 and $200 per session, costing Canadians nearly $1 billion per year. Some people are fortunate to have workplace insurance that covers some but not all of the costs, but most people in Canada do not have insurance and so they pay out of pocket or they go untreated. Research shows us that approximately 13 to 18 sessions are needed for 50% of clients to get better with psychotherapy. Which means that even with an insurance plan, many Canadians who need psychotherapy will find it to be a financial burden. Since 2008, the National Health Service in England implemented the Improving Access to Psychotherapies (IAPT) services to provide publicly funded psychotherapy to the population. The psychological treatments provided through IAPT are evidence-based (e.g., CBT, interpersonal psychotherapy, brief dynamic psychotherapy for depression). For mild to moderate problems, individuals get low intensity interventions first (i.e., self help, internet based interventions), followed by more intensive psychotherapy if needed. Treatment outcomes are measured from pre- to post-treatment with valid standardized measures of depression and anxiety. At post-treatment, patients are categorized as reliably deteriorated, not changed, improved, and recovered. The goal of the IAPT is to achieve 50% recovery rates among patients. In their online 2014-15 annual report, the IAPT service reported that it treated over 400,000 patients in that year. 44.8% of patients were rated as reliably recovered – that is over 180,000 mentally ill patients improved and no longer had a mental illness. Reliable improvement was seen in 60.8% of patients – this included recovered patients plus those who still had a disorder but were feeling significantly better than when they started. Recovery was highest for people 65 years and older (57.8%). Rates of recovery were similar for depression (44.6%) and anxiety (47.8%) disorders, and between men and women. Waiting times for treatment was less than 28 days for 66.0% of patients.

Practice Implications

The experience in England with the IAPT is instructive for Canada. The IAPT service provides evidence-based psychological therapies within a publicly funded national health service. The IAPT approached its target of 50% of patients recovering from mental illness, and over 60% of patients were reliably improved. Waiting times were low for most patients. Given the experience in England’s National Health Service, the implementation of a national strategy for psychotherapy appears to be feasible and effective. Will political leaders in Canada be able to see the financial and human value of publicly funded psychotherapy?

Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Starting in April, 2015 I review parts of The Great Psychotherapy Debate (Wampold & Imel, 2015) in the PPRNet Blog. This is the second edition of a landmark, and sometimes controversial, book that surveys the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. You can view parts of the book in Google Books

In the concluding chapter of their book, Wampold and Imel discuss the evidence and strategies that therapists can use to improve patient outcomes. As indicated in previous PPRNet Blogs, Wampold and Imel concluded that the differences between specific treatment approaches is small. In other words, Wampold and Imel argue that there is no good evidence that one bona fide psychotherapy is more effective than another for most disorders. By “bona fide” treatments, they mean psychotherapy that: provides the client with a plausible theory/explanation of the disorder, delivers a structured intervention based on the plausible theory, and is offered by an effective therapist. The authors also found that contextual factors (e.g., therapeutic alliance, therapist empathy, client expectations) accounted for a sizeable proportion of patient outcomes. A key element in this understanding of effective therapy is the role of the therapist. The authors reviewed various studies and meta analyses that showed that therapists differ widely in their outcomes and in their ability to establish a therapeutic alliance. Unfortunately, therapists tend to be overly-optimistic about their clients’ outcomes. Therapists often do not have quality data on their clients’ progress, and the complexities of the therapeutic work makes it difficult for therapists to keep in mind all aspects of the therapy that is helpful or not helpful to clients. For example, some therapists may be good at establishing an alliance, but they may not be so good at providing a viable treatment structure. Other therapists may be highly empathic with clients who have moderately severe symptoms, but the same therapists may not respond as empathically with more difficult clients. Outcome or process monitoring (i.e., providing therapists with reliable information about the ongoing status of patient symptoms or about the quality of the therapeutic relationship) provides an evidence-based aid in helping therapists to improve their clients’ outcomes.

Practice Implications

Regardless of the type of psychotherapy they use, therapists are responsible for achieving good outcomes for their clients. This includes continually developing therapeutic skills over time. There is some evidence that a reflective attitude towards one’s psychotherapy practice is helpful. Unfortunately, therapists may not be continually improving or reflecting on their practice. This is indicated by research showing that trainees and interns appear to be as competent as experienced clinicians. Therapists need quality information about their clients in order to improve their own practice and clients’ outcomes. But psychotherapy practice is complex, the therapeutic relationship is multifaceted, and clients are variable in their presenting issues and life experiences. All of these make it difficult for any therapist to make accurate decisions in therapy. Progress or process monitoring (i.e., continually measuring outcomes and relationship processes with a psychometrically valid instrument), may be one way for therapists to receive high quality feedback about patient progress in order to improve their psychotherapy practice.

Kivlighan, D.M., Goldberg, S.B., Abbas, M., Pace, B.T., …Wampold, B.E. (2015). The enduring effects of psychodynamic treatments vis-à-vis alternative treatments: A multilevel longitudinal meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 1-14.

There is a great deal of evidence that indicates uniform efficacy of a variety of psychotherapies for many common disorders. For example, in the July 2014 PPRNet Blog, I reviewed a meta-analysis comparing 7 psychotherapies for depression indicating no differences between the various treatments in terms of patient outcomes. Nevertheless proponents of cognitive behavioural therapy have claimed superiority to alternative treatments for decades. On the other hand proponents of psychodynamic therapies have argued that these treatments focus on personality change rather than symptoms, and so benefits of psychodynamic therapies will be longer lasting. In this meta analysis, Kivlighan and colleagues put these claims to the test. They selected studies in which a psychodynamic therapy was compared to one or more alternative treatment. Both the psychodynamic therapy and the alternative (most often CBT) had to be judged as “bona fide” therapies by independent raters (i.e., they had to be therapies that were delivered in a manner in which they could be expected to be effective by clients and therapists). Outcomes not only included specific symptoms (e.g., depression), but also non-targeted outcomes (e.g., improved self esteem in a study of treatment of anxiety), and personality outcomes. Effect sizes for outcomes were assessed at post-treatment and also at follow-ups. Twenty five studies directly comparing psychodynamic and non-psychodynamic therapies were included, representing 1690 patients. At post treatment, no significant differences were found between psychodynamic and non-psychodynamic treatments on targeted outcomes, non-targeted outcomes, and personality measures (all gs < .10). There was also no significant or meaningful effect of time to follow up on outcomes, indicating no differences between treatment types at any of the follow up periods.

Practice Implications

Psychodynamic and non-psychodynamic treatments were equally effective at post treatment and at follow ups for all outcomes, including personality variables. This challenges the belief that psychodynamic treatments uniquely affect personality and have longer lasting effects compared to other treatments. It also challenges the notion that CBT (by far the most common comparison treatment) is a superior therapy for patient outcomes. Pan-theoretical psychotherapy factors (client contributions, expectations, therapeutic alliance) may be more promising factors in understanding the long term benefits of psychotherapy. 

Author email: kivlighan@wisc.edu

Boswell, J.F., Kraus, D.R., Miller, S.D., & Lambert, M.J. (2015). Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 6-19.

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) refers to: (1) systematically assessing patient outcomes at every session, (2) comparing patient scores and progress to a database of similar patients, (3) using algorithms or decision tools to identify patients who are not improving or deteriorating, (4) providing regular and immediate feedback to therapists about the patient, and (5) in some cases providing clinical decision aids to help therapists improve outcomes for patients who are not improving or who are deteriorating. Boswell and colleagues review the research related to ROM. Generally, about 30% to 50% of patients do not respond to treatment, and 8% of patients tend to get worse during treatment. Therapists tend to overestimate their patients’ improvement, and so therapists may not always identify patients who do not respond or get worse. Therapists may need assessment aids to help them make decisions about patient progress and treatment. Boswell and colleagues point out that ROM have a proven ability to predict treatment failure and other negative outcomes. In a meta analysis of over 6,000 patients, the patients at risk of a negative outcome whose therapist received ROM feedback prior to every session were better off than 70% of at-risk patients whose therapist received no feedback. When therapists are provided feedback and suggestions for interventions, their patients had almost four times higher odds of achieving clinically significant improvement. Boswell and colleagues list a number of barriers that psychotherapists and agencies experience to implementing ROM in their practices. Many therapists are not aware of or have no experience with ROM, and so they may not be aware of its benefits to their practice and patients. Time and money are two practical issues that may arise. This type of assessment is not always reimbursed and the average clinician may feel that they do not have enough time to reflect on routine assessment and feedback so as to reconsider their interventions. Agencies may not understand the value of allocating resources to this type of testing (although medically oriented agencies would not hesitate to order a blood test or an x-ray). Finally, some therapists might experience ROM as intrusive, as impeding the therapeutic relationship, and as a means for an agency to control therapist decisions.

Practice Implications

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has clear benefits to patients, therapists, and agencies. To overcome barriers, therapists and agencies could implement ROM as part of routine clinical care, and advertise this as an evidence-based practice that will benefit prospective patients. Clients generally appreciate knowing that they will receive the best possible care. ROM can enhance the therapeutic relationship if it is presented to clients as a collaborative endeavor. For example, if a patient is not improving or is deteriorating, therapists can discuss this with patients as well as a plan to alter aspects of the treatment in order to improve the prospects for a better outcome. Therapists can choose from a number of possible ROM options to best tailor the approach to their clients based on cost, time, and relevance. Currently, there are several outcome monitoring systems available to clinicians including: the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS), the Treatment Outcome Package (TOPS), the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE), and the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) system.

Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E. (2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based practice in psychotherapy: A common factors perspective. Psychotherapy, 51(4), 467-481.

In this wide ranging review of the Common Factors (CF) perspective in psychotherapy, Laska and colleagues tackle the complex issues of defining CF and describing the evidence. The authors argue that CF in psychotherapy are not a vague set of ideas that fit under the label of “non-specific factors” or “relationship factors”. They also state that there is an unnecessary dichotomy between the concepts of empirically supported treatments (EST) and CF. In EST, specific and brief manualized therapies for specific disorders are tested in highly controlled randomized trials. ESTs purport that efficacious psychotherapies contain specific techniques based on an articulated theory of the disorder, and a specific mechanism of change for that disorder (e.g., depression is partly caused by depressogenic beliefs and so CBT for depression specifically targets cognitive distortions). There are published lists of ESTs for many disorders. However, Laska and colleagues argue that there is little evidence of the specificity of these treatments. For example, in dismantling studies an intervention like CBT for depression is compared to a dismantled version that removes an “active ingredient” [e.g., by providing only behavioral activation as an intervention], with little difference in patient outcomes between the full and dismantled versions. Further, for a number of disorders, several therapies based on very different theories of the disorder and of change are equally effective. In contrast to the EST approach, Laska and colleagues describe the CF approach which focuses on factors that are necessary and sufficient for patient change across psychotherapies, such as: (1) an emotional bond between client and therapist, (2) a healing setting for therapy, (3) a therapist who provides a theoretically and culturally relevant explanation for emotional distress, (4) an adaptive explanation that is acceptable to clients, and (5) procedures that lead clients to do something that is positive and helpful. Nevertheless, CF does not provide therapists with a license to do whatever they want without considering the evidence of a therapy’s efficacy. Rather CF does encourage therapists to make use of specific factors found in ESTs and to practice with a purpose. In support of the importance of CF, Laska and colleagues review the evidence from a number of meta analyses that show that CF (i.e., alliance, empathy, collaboration, positive regard, genuineness, therapist effects) each account for 5% to 11.5% of patient outcomes. These are moderate effects. Specific ingredients of psychotherapies or differences between ESTs account for 0% to 1% of patient outcomes, which represent small effects.

Practice Implications

An excessive focus or reliance on empirically supported therapies (EST) may unnecessarily limit what the profession and funders consider to be evidence-based practice. A common factors (CF) approach provides scientific evidence for effective therapeutic practices that are necessary in addition to the specific treatments found in lists of ESTs. To be effective, therapists should be able to: (1) develop a therapeutic alliance and repair ruptures to the alliance, (2) provide a safe context for the therapy, (3) be able to communicate sound psychological theory for the client’s distress based on evidence, (4) suggest a course of action that is based on evidence, and (5) conduct therapy based on established theories of distress and healing. Laska and colleagues argue that systematic patient progress monitoring and ongoing monitoring of the therapeutic alliance may be an effective method of quality improvement of therapists’ outcomes. Progress monitoring may provide therapists with information about areas for continuing education to improve their patients’ outcomes.

Tracey, T.J.G., Wampold, B.E., Lichtenberg, J.W., & Goodyear, R.K. (2014). Expertise in psychotherapy: An elusive goal? American Psychologist, 69, 218-229.

As I have reported many times in this blog, there is substantial evidence for the efficacy of psychotherapy. However, the quality of psychotherapy differs across therapists – that is, some therapists achieve better client outcomes than others. Tracey and colleagues (2014) ask: is it possible to demonstrate expertise in psychotherapy? They define expertise as “increased quality of performance that is gained with additional experience”. Professions that can demonstrate expertise include: astronomers, test pilots, chess masters, mathematicians, and accountants. But several professions may not demonstrate expertise, including: psychiatrists, college admissions officers, court judges, personnel selectors, and psychotherapists. The difference is that the former group has predictable outcomes and has access to quality feedback. In addition, Tracey and colleagues argue that psychotherapy lacks adequate models for how interventions produce benefits. As a result, adherence to treatment protocols (i.e., manuals) is not reliably associated with better patient outcomes. Further, more experienced therapists are not more effective than less experienced therapists. Experienced therapists might have more complete conceptualizations of client problems, but these conceptualizations may not be accurate. Finally, although therapists affect outcomes, client variables (e.g., motivation, severity of symptoms, expectations) likely explain the largest proportion of outcome variance. Tracey and colleagues argue that part of the problem is that psychotherapists do not engage in “deliberate practice”; that is, practice of a specific task (e.g., identifying a rupture in the alliance), receiving specific feedback (e.g., that a rupture was not identified), opportunity for repetition (e.g., to identify a subsequent rupture in the alliance), and opportunity for improvement afforded by error (e.g., better able to identify a future rupture and repairing that rupture). Generally the practice of psychotherapy provides little feedback about the accuracy of past clinical decisions. In other words there is a lack of quality information to help therapists develop into experts. Further, for a whole host of reasons, psychotherapists are notoriously poor at assessing client progress (i.e., like other humans, therapists engage in a number of biased evaluations of their performance). Quality information might be available from progress monitoring (i.e., continuous feedback to therapists about client outcomes), which has been shown to improve client outcomes. However, this may not aid therapists in developing expertise, since progress monitoring provides little information about what therapist behaviors are necessary to improve performance and client outcomes.

Practice Implications

Tracey and colleagues conclude that currently psychotherapy does not provide evidence that it is a profession with expertise. To achieve expertise, therapists need quality information not only about their patients’ outcomes but also about their own average outcomes (i.e. performance) relative to other therapists working with similar clients. And therapists need information on how to manage specific events in psychotherapy. Tracey and colleagues suggest therapists set aside time to generate hypotheses about one’s practice that can be disconfirmed, and then test these hypotheses. For example, if a therapist is experiencing a higher than average number of premature client terminations (which may follow a misunderstanding with the client), the therapist may hypothesize that he or she is not identifying key alliance ruptures. To test this hypothesis, the therapist could repeatedly assess the alliance (with a validated instrument) with some clients, use this information and not clinical judgement alone to identify alliance ruptures (i.e., a week to week severe downward trend in alliance scores), and implement an intervention to repair the alliance with these clients. Do clients with whom a therapist has implemented this procedure drop out at a lower rate? Does this process of deliberately identifying alliance ruptures and repairing them lead to enhanced therapist performance regarding alliance ruptures? This form of deliberate practice (testing disconfirmable hypotheses based on quality information) might lead to greater expertise in identifying alliance ruptures.