Blog

Kvaale, E. P., Haslam, N., & Gottdiener, W. H. (2013). The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 782-794.

Psychotherapists may wonder how best to explain a psychological problem to their clients and their family members. Will their explanation help to reduce stigma and increase hope? Laypeople, clinicians, and researchers increasingly understand psychological problems in biomedical terms. Further, some anti-stigma campaigns describe mental health problems, including depression, as biological, medical illnesses. Reducing stigma is important to improve uptake of therapy, reduce an internalized sense of defectiveness, and increase hope and self esteem. Some argue that understanding psychological problems as biologically based will combat stigma by reducing blame and punitive treatment. Kvaale and colleagues asked whether there is a cost to medicalization of psychological problems by unwittingly promoting the stereotype that those with a mental illness have a deep seated, fixed, and defining essence. Proponents of medicalization hope that such an approach will reduce blame for a mental illness, and will result in less desire for social distance from the mentally ill. However, medicalization might also result in: an increased belief that those with psychological problems are dangerous; and greater pessimism and hopelessness about the prognosis (i.e., a belief that the problem can not be improved). A meta-analysis by Kvaale and colleagues looked at experimental studies of student and community based samples in which explanations for a psychological problem was manipulated to include biomedical explanations versus psychological explanations or no explanations. The meta-analysis aimed to examine the causal effects of biogenetic explanations for psychological problems on: blame, perceived dangerousness, social distance, and prognostic pessimism. Regarding blame, the authors reviewed 14 studies that included 2326 participants and found that biogenetic explanations were associated with a decreased tendency to blame individuals with psychological problems. Regarding perceived dangerousness, the authors reviewed 10 studies with 1207 participants, and found that biogenetic explanations were associated with an increase in perceiving those with psychological problems as dangerous. However this result is tentative because publication bias may have resulted in an over estimation of the association (see my May 2013 blog on publication bias [“Are the Effects of Psychotherapy for Depression Overestimated?”]). Regarding social distance, the authors reviewed 16 studies with 2692 participants, but found no relationship between biogenetic explanations and reduced social distance. Regarding prognostic pessimism, the authors reviewed 16 studies with 3469 participants, and found that biogenetic explanations were associated with greater pessimism about the prognosis of a psychological problem.

Practice Implications

The meta analysis by Kvaale and colleagues found that biomedical explanations for psychological problems typically decrease blame, but increase prognostic pessimism and perceptions of dangerousness, although the latter conclusion is somewhat tentative. The findings lead one to be skeptical of the view that stigma will be reduced by promoting an understanding of psychological problems as biogenetic diseases. Kvaale and colleagues suggest that the affected individual, family members and mental health professionals could be more pessimistic about change because of a biomedical explanation, thus impeding the patient’s recovery process. Psychotherapists should share information about the biogenetic factors of psychological problems. However, this must be done with caution. Kvaale and colleagues conclude that explanations that invoke biomedical factors may reduce blame but also may have unintended side-effects. Biogenetic explanations should not be promoted at the expense of psychosocial explanations, which may have more optimistic implications.

Author email: e.kvaale@student.unimelb.edu.au

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.

Bohart, A.C. & Wade, A.G. (2013). The client in psychotherapy. In M. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6^th ed.), pp. 219-257. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Some authors argue that client factors account for 30% of variance in outcomes. That represents a greater association to psychotherapy outcome than therapist effects and therapeutic techniques combined. In this part of the Handbook chapter on client factors, Bohart and Wade discuss client attachment. Bowlby found that attachment relationships were important and were different from other relationships. Attachment figures confer a sense of security and safety to infants that allow children to explore their environment and experience the self. Attachment patterns that develop in childhood tend to be stable throughout the lifespan, but attachment style can change with positive (i.e., psychotherapy, romantic relationships) and negative (i.e., traumatic events) experiences. Attachment security is associated with adaptive affect regulation, positive view of self and others, and reflective functioning that is related to mentalizing. Attachment anxiety is associated with maladaptive up-regulation of emotions, positive view of others but negative view of self, and reduced reflective functioning likely due to preoccupation with relationships and emotion dysregulation. Attachment avoidance is associated with maladaptive down-regulation of emotions, negative view of others and positive view of self (or negative view of others and negative view of self in the case of fearful avoidant attachment), and limited reflective functioning due to dismissing of emotions and relationships. There are also disorganized attachment states related to traumatic events. Those with attachment avoidance tend to be distrustful and less likely to seek psychotherapy. A meta-analysis by Levy and colleagues (2011) of 19 studies including 1467 clients found that attachment security was associated with good psychotherapy outcomes and attachment anxiety was negatively associated with good outcomes. No relationship was found for attachment avoidance and outcomes. Diener and Monroe (2011) conducted a separate meta analysis on attachment and therapeutic alliance which included 17 studies with 886 clients. They found that clients with secure attachments had better alliances with their therapist and those with insecure attachments (anxious or avoidant) had weaker alliances.

Practice Implications

The research is clear that client attachment style influences how clients enter therapy, engage with the therapist, and experience outcomes. Attachment style likely affects specific therapy behaviors like self-disclosure and amount of exploration. In his book Attachment and Psychotherapy, David Wallin (2007) translates attachment theory into a framework for adult psychotherapy by tailoring interventions to specific attachment styles. For example, clients with greater attachment anxiety may do better in psychotherapy when the therapist: helps with down regulation of client emotional experiences, behaves in a way that does not evoke client fears of abandonment or loss, and helps clients improve reflective functioning by encouraging a thoughtful appraisal of their behaviors. On the other hand clients with greater attachment avoidance may require a therapist who: slowly introduces the client to greater attention to emotional experiences, does not demand too much from the client in terms of closeness in therapy at the outset, and encourages reflective functioning by helping the client understand the association between defensive avoidance of affect and relationship problems.

Lambert, M. J. (2012). Helping clinicians to use and learn from research-based systems: The OQ-analyst. Psychotherapy, 49(2), 109.

One of the more interesting and clinically relevant trends in psychotherapy research and practice in the past 10 years is the emergence of research on continuous progress monitoring. Continuous progress monitoring occurs when a patient is given a standardized self report measure before a session and the results of patient functioning are fed back to the therapist. (This is distinct from a clinician asking a patient for a verbal account of how he or she is doing this week). The standardized self report assessment is often done repeatedly, sometimes before every session or every fixed number of sessions. Measures, such as the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) for adults or youths, was specifically designed for this purpose. The OQ assesses symptoms, interpersonal functioning, and life functioning, and clients are identified as improving (i.e., on course), or at risk of deteriorating. Recently, a small meta analysis of 3 to 4 studies representing 454 to 558 clients on the effects of progress monitoring found a moderate relationship between monitoring plus feedback and client outcomes. The method is particularly effective in changing the course of outcomes for patients who are deteriorating. Large research reviews of evidence based treatments in randomized controlled trials show that about 40% to 60% of patients improve or recover from psychotherapy, 30% to 50% may not benefit, and 3% to 14% deteriorate (see my March 2013 blog). These proportions are likely less positive in everyday practice in which clients are not highly screened to meet research inclusion criteria. Unfortunately, clinicians’ views of their own client outcomes are unrealistically positive. In one survey, clinicians in routine practice reported that about 85% of their clients improved or recovered. About 90% of therapists rated themselves in the upper quartile and none rated themselves as below average (50^th percentile). Also there is serious doubt about the ability of clinicians to identify clients during the course of therapy, who ultimately deteriorate. In the paper by Lambert on the use of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ), he reviewed several studies on continuous progress monitoring in everyday practice. Each therapist was asked to practice as they routinely do with half their usual caseload. With the other half of their caseload clients completed the OQ and the therapist received feedback before every session about patient progress. The feedback did not make a difference for clients who made steady progress (i.e., on track) from week to week. However, continuous progress monitoring did make a difference for the 20% to 30% who showed some sign of deteriorating at some point in treatment. Notifying therapists that these patients were in trouble reduced the rate of deterioration from 20.1% to 5.5%, and monitoring and feedback increased positive outcomes from 22.3% to 55.5%.

Practice Implications

Lambert reported that clinicians in these “practice as usual” studies were initially skeptical but quite surprised at the outcomes related to continuous progress monitoring. Standardized assessments appear to get around the problem of clinician over-estimation of their patients’ positive outcomes. Clinicians were able to more accurately identify clients at risk of deteriorating likely resulting in the therapist doing something different to forestall the negative consequences. Lambert argues that it is in the best interest of at-risk patients to have their symptoms, interpersonal functioning, and life functioning formally monitored throughout treatment. However, clinicians are likely to resist doing so because they believe that they are already highly successful, and even more so than the typical outcomes produced by clinical trials. Formal monitoring of client outcomes has little downside for clinicians (it is inexpensive and requires little training), and it has many upsides for clients, especially those who are at risk for deteriorating.

Author email: michael_lambert@byu.edu

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