Blog

Kraus, D. R., Castonguay, L., Boswell, J. F., Nordberg, S. S., & Hayes, J. A. (2011). Therapist effectiveness: Implications for accountability and patient care. Psychotherapy Research, 21, 267-276.

Some patients benefit from psychotherapy, some do not, and a few get worse. Research has indicated that patient motivation, client-therapist match, and client characteristics might be associated with better or worse client outcomes. What about the contribution of the therapist? Do some therapists consistently have patients with better outcomes or with worse outcomes? Are consistently effective therapists effective for most patient problem areas or only some? Answers to these questions have important public health, funding, continuing education, and training implications. In a large study conducted in the U.S., Kraus and colleagues assessed 12 patient domains (sexual functioning, work functioning, violence, social functioning, anxiety, substance abuse, psychosis, quality of life, sleep, suicidality, depression, and mania) with a standardized reliable measure (the Treatment Outcome Package). The measure was used in a variety of public and private clinics and practices. Almost 700 therapists were sampled (including social workers 43%, mental health counsellors 35%, psychologists 10%, others 12%), with an average of 11 years experience. Ten cases were selected from each therapist caseload, so almost 7000 patients were included that received at least 16 sessions of therapy (16 sessions is an adequate dose for 50% of patients to improve – see my August, 2013 blog). The patients were, for the most part, representative of a typical caseload with regard to age, sex, and problem area as compared to previous national (U.S.) research. The authors used a reliable change index to classify patients as reliably improved, unchanged, or reliably worsened. The reliable change index is a way of assessing if change from session 1 to 16 on average exceeded the scale’s measurement error so that the change was considered reliable (i.e., not due to error). Reliable change for each therapist’s 10 patients was calculated so that a therapist could be classified as “effective” (i.e., on average their patients reliably improved), “ineffective” (i.e., on average their patients did not change), or “harmful” (i.e., on average their patients reliably worsened). The frequency of effective therapists ranged from a low of 29% in treating symptoms of sexual dysfunction to a high of 67% in treating symptoms of depression. Harmful therapists ranged from a low of 3% in treating depressive symptoms to a high of 16% in treating symptoms of substance abuse and violence. When looking at competency areas (i.e., areas of reliable effectiveness), the median number of areas of therapist competence was 5 out of 12 problem areas. Only 1 therapist of the approximately 700 therapists was competent in 11 of 12 domains, and none were competent in all 12 domains. Being effective in one domain was not correlated with effectiveness in another domain. So, one cannot infer that if a therapist was effective in treating depression he or she would also be effective in treating social dysfunction, for example.

Practice Implications

There was tremendous variability in therapist skill and areas of competence in this very large sample of therapists. Between 3% and 16% of therapists were classified as reliably harmful to their patients, and between 29% and 67% were reliably effective depending on the problem area they were treating. Therapists who were effective in one domain could be harmful in another. Most therapists had some areas in which they were consistently effective, usually around 5. However, as indicated by previous research, without routine measurement, therapists may not be aware of clients for whom they are consistently helpful or harmful. Routine monitoring of outcomes could guide the matching of client problems to therapists, and could direct therapists to areas for continuing education, training, or personal therapy.

Author email: dkraus@bhealthlabs.com

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month in the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content can be viewed on Amazon.

Lambert, M.J. (2013). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M.J. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6^th ed.), pp. 169-218. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

An important issue for patients, therapists, and agencies is the optimal dosage of psychotherapy that is necessary to reduce impairment and improve life functioning. In this part of the Handbook chapter on Efficacy and Effectiveness of Psychotherapy, Lambert tackles the issue of the psychotherapy dose-response relationship by reviewing the existing literature. That literature tends to focus on naturalistic national (U.S.) samples of patients (often N > 6,000) receiving routine care in Health Maintenance Organizations, Employee Assistance Programs, and Community Mental Health Clinics. Outcomes tend to be assessed by patient self report, and can include symptoms, character traits, quality of life, and interpersonal functioning, among others. Lambert defines “improved” patients as those who reliably changed but still are within the dysfunctional range on a measure, and he defines “recovered” patients as those who both reliably improved and were no longer in the dysfunctional range. He concluded that on average 50% of patients who begin treatment in the dysfunctional range achieve recovery following 21 sessions of psychotherapy. On the flip side, half of patients do not achieve recovery after 21 sessions. Almost 50 sessions are necessary for 75% of patients to recover. In other words, there is a rapid rate of recovery in which half of patients recover after 21 sessions, but then the rate of recovery slows down so that it takes up to 50 sessions for an additional 25% of patients to recover. The rates of recovery also differ depending on what is measured. Symptoms (depression, anxiety, etc.) tend to recover more quickly than characterological or interpersonal problems. Further, some patients experience sudden symptom gains in therapy that are long lasting. Between 17% and 50% of patients experience the majority of their symptom improvements within 7 sessions, and these early changes accounted for 50% of total symptom gains in therapy.

Practice Implications

The question of how much therapy is enough is important for practical and theoretical reasons. Research on this topic can help patients, therapists, and agencies make decisions about treatment planning. Research suggests that a sizeable proportion of patients (50%) reliably improve after 7 sessions and a similar percentage recover after 21 sessions. However, limiting treatment to less than 20 sessions will mean that about half of patients will not achieve a substantial benefit from therapy. Session limits need to be assessed carefully depending on how the patient is doing and what outcomes are important or valued. Agencies or clinicians that firmly set limits on the number of psychotherapy sessions that are too low will have the majority of their patients showing some improvement but not recovering.

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

Castonguay, L.G., Boswell, J.F., Zack, S., Baker, S., Boutselis, M., Chiswick, N., Damer, D., Hemmelstein, N., Jackson, J., Morford, M., Ragusea, S., Roper, G., Spayd, C., Weiszer, T., Borkovec, T.D., & Grosse Holtforth,, M. (2010). Helpful and hindering events in psychotherapy: A practice research network study. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, and Training, 47, 327-344.

There are many reasons why I like this paper, and one reason is that it is a psychotherapy practice research network study (most of the co-authors are independent practice clinicians). This group of clinicians and researchers met on a number of occasions to define the research questions, including: “what do psychotherapists and clients find most and least helpful in a psychotherapy session?”; and “do psychotherapists and clients agree on what was most and least helpful?” The clinicians and researchers also discussed and agreed on the method for collecting and analysing the data. Thirteen independent practice clinicians participated (6 CBT, 4 psychodynamic, and 3 experiental/humanistic). For a period of 18 months, all new clients were invited to participate so that 121 clients with a variety of disorders enrolled in the study. Clients and therapists filled out (on an index card) parts of the Helpful Aspects of Therapy (HAT) measure, which asked them to report, describe, and rate particularly helpful and hindering events from the session they had just completed. For example clients and therapists were asked: “Did anything particularly helpful happen during this session?”; and “Did anything happen during this session which might have been hindering?” When participants answered “Yes” to either of these questions, they were asked to briefly describe the event(s), and then rate them on a scale from 1 to 4 for level of helpfulness or level of hindrance. Both clients and therapists did so at the end of every therapy session. Close to 1500 therapeutic events were recorded by the clients and therapists. The events were then coded and categorized according to type of event by independent raters using an established coding system. Clients rated self-awareness, problem clarification, and problem solution as the most helpful type of events, although self-awareness was significantly the most identified of all helpful events by clients. Therapists rated self-awareness, alliance strengthening, and problem clarification as the most helpful type of events. Therapists identified self-awareness and alliance strengthening significantly more often than any other helpful events. Hindering events were identified much less frequently by clients and therapists. Client identified poor fit (e.g., therapist tried something that didn’t fit the client’s experience) as the most frequent hindering event category. Therapists identified therapist omissions (i.e., failure to provide support or an intervention) as the most frequent hindering event category. Overall, with the exception of self-awareness, therapists and clients did not agree on what were the most helpful or hindering events in therapy.

Practice Implications

Results regarding self awareness indicate that providing clients with opportunities to achieve a clearer sense of their experience (e.g., emotions, behaviors, and perceptions of self) is frequently reported as beneficial by both clients and therapists. The events that therapists most frequently reported as detrimental were those in which they failed to be attuned to their clients’ needs. This may reflect therapists’ concerns with potential alliance ruptures. The overall lack of agreement between therapists and clients on helpful and hindering events raises the question about whether therapists are not aware enough of clients’ experiences, or whether clients are not knowledgeable about what is in fact therapeutic. Perhaps client and therapist ratings of events represent complementary perspectives on what works or does not work in psychotherapy. Regarding participating in research, these independent practice therapists reported that the procedure of writing down helpful and harmful events and reading what their clients wrote after each session had a positive impact on their practice. That is, the process of data collection became immediately relevant to their clinical work.

Author email: lgc3@psu.edu

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: Starting in March 2013 I will review one chapter a month from the Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change in addition to reviewing psychotherapy research articles. Book chapters have more restrictive copy right rules than journal articles, so I will not provide author email addresses for these chapters. If you are interested, the Handbook table of content can be viewed on Amazon.

Forand, N.R., DeRubeis, R.J., & Amsterdam, J.D. (2013). Combining medication and psychotherapy in the treatment of major mental disorders. In M.J. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6^th ed.), pp. 735-774. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.

This comprehensive chapter covers evidence for combining medication and psychotherapy for several disorders. This month I report on the section of the chapter on schizophrenia. Practice guidelines recommend antipsychotic medications as the first line treatment for Schizophrenia. However, up to 30% of individuals show an initial poor response and an additional 30% of patients continue to experience symptoms. Medication side effects can be debilitating, resulting in poor adherence and therefore reduced effectiveness. Further, Schizophrenia spectrum disorders are heterogenous in presentation and course, and so a “one size fits all” approach will not be effective for some or many. Psychotherapies can enhance the effectiveness of medications at different phases of treatment to hasten recovery or reduce medication-resistant symptoms. CBT for schizophrenia was developed to treat persistent medication-resistant positive psychotic symptoms (i.e., positive symptoms refer to delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech and behaviour; whereas negative symptoms refer to restrictions in: emotions, thoughts, speech, and initiating goal directed behaviors). CBT focuses on reappraising the power and source of hallucinations, evaluating delusions, and addressing motivational deficits. CBT appears to be effective for chronic symptoms of schizophrenia with small to moderate effects, and these effects appear to be enduring. There is currently less and mixed evidence for CBT to speed recovery from first episode psychosis and to improve relapse rates. There is also evidence suggesting the effects of family psychoeducation to reduce relapse and to improve caregiver outcomes. However, family psychoeducation requires the participation of a caregiver, which may be a challenge that limits its utility. There is promising research on multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs that include case management, behaviour management, social skills training, social cognitive training, and cognitive remediation. There is also controversial research on providing psychological interventions alone or in a staged approach (i.e, in which earlier and less severe stages are treated with more benign interventions, and later stages are treated more aggressively with medication). However there are as yet no well-controlled clinical data to support this approach.

Practice Implications

Adjunctive psychosocial treatments appear to improve symptomatic and functional outcomes in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. CBT is best suited for treating chronic positive psychotic symptoms, but its effect on relapse prevention is equivocal. Individuals who are at risk for relapse might benefit from family psychoeducation, if the caregiver can be engaged. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs are a promising avenue of treatment.

Horvath, A.O., Fluckiger, C., Del Re, A.C., & Symonds, D. (2011). Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 9-16.

The psychotherapy alliance is probably the most researched concept in psychotherapy. A PsychInfo search of terms including the word “alliance” will turn up over 7000 hits. Although the concept of alliance has been around at least since the 1950s, the commonly acceptable pan-theoretical definition that is currently used was proposed by Bordin in the 1970s. This definition emphasizes the conscious aspects of the collaboration between therapist and client, and involves three elements: agreement on goals, agreement on tasks, and the bond between client and therapist. What is important in terms of developing the alliance is the therapist’s ability to step back from his or her own agenda and emphasize, prioritize, and negotiate the collaborative relationship. This allows for the selection of an intervention that is congruent with client expectations, which then will foster a high level of mutuality. Horvath and colleagues conducted a large meta analysis of alliance - outcome research from the years 1991 to 2009 that included 190 independent studies and over 14,000 participants. The overall relationship between alliance and outcome was statistically significant and moderate in size. This was a highly reliable effect. The results were consistent regardless of which measure was used, who rated the alliance (client, therapist, independent rater), or what type of treatment was studied (i.e., CBT, IPT, Psychodynamic, etc). Similar results were found in separate published meta analyses of child and adolescent psychotherapy and of family and couple therapy, though the effect is larger in couple therapy.

Practice Implications

The quality of the alliance is an index of the level of mutual and collaborative commitment to therapy by the therapist and client. Its distinguishing feature is the focus on therapy as a collaborative enterprise. Establishing a good alliance prevents clients from dropping out, and the sense of collaboration creates a context to introduce new ways of addressing the client’s concerns. In the early phases of therapy, tailoring the methods of therapy (tasks) to suit the specific client’s needs, expectations, and capacities is important in building the alliance. Misjudging the client’s experience of the alliance (i.e., believing that it is in good shape when the client does not share this perception) could render therapeutic interventions less effective. Horvath and colleagues suggest active monitoring the clients’ alliance throughout treatment. Therapists’ nondefensive responses to client negativity or hostility are critical for maintaining a good alliance. Research indicates that therapists who are good at building a strong alliance tend to have better alliances with most of their clients. However, the reverse is also true – some therapists consistently struggle to establish and maintain a good alliance with their clients. The strength of the alliance often fluctuates when therapists’ challenge clients to deal with difficult issues, when misunderstandings arise, and when transference occurs and/or is highlighted. Resolution of these normal variations is associated with good treatment outcomes. The next blog entry discusses research on alliance ruptures and repairs.

Author email: horvath@sfu.ca