Blog

The Effectiveness of Telepsychology Interventions

Varker, T., Brand, R. M., Ward, J., Terhaag, S., & Phelps, A. (2019). Efficacy of synchronous telepsychology interventions for people with anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and adjustment disorder: A rapid evidence assessment. Psychological Services, 16(4), 621–635.

The arrival of COVID-19 as a global pandemic has led to public health authorities encouraging physical distancing, including in the context of psychotherapy. Many professional organizations and regulatory colleges have made similar calls, so that psychotherapists and mental health providers have had to come up with creative ways of continuing to provide care to their clients. Many therapists have turned to telepsychology – the provision of psychotherapy through telephone, video conferencing technologies, or internet based chat rooms. But what is the evidence for these modalities of care, is there adequate research to support their use, are they as effective as care as usual? In this rapid evidence assessment, Varker and colleagues review the existing empirical research on the efficacy of telepsychology programs. They only looked at synchronous telepsychology interventions (i.e., those interventions during which therapist and client are interacting in real time), and not asynchronous use of technology (smartphone apps and chat technologies in which therapist and client are not interacting in real time or are not interacting at all). Synchronous telepsychology is most similar to face to face psychotherapy, and likely the option adopted by most therapists during these times. Health care providers initially adopted telepsychology and telehealth to overcome barriers to access to health care and psychotherapy like distance, stigma, and transportation needs. With the global pandemic related to COVID-19, psychotherapists are increasingly using telepsychology to manage physical distancing requirements while providing services. Varker and colleagues focused their review on randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, which researchers consider to be the highest level of evidence for an intervention. The authors found 24 studies that evaluated telepsychology interventions with clinical populations of adults who had depression, anxiety, or PTSD. They found good quality evidence for telephone-delivered therapy (11 studies) and video teleconference-delivered interventions (12 studies). That means that the studies of these modalities were high quality and so results were likely reliable. The evidence indicated that both of these modes of delivering psychotherapy were as effective as face-to-face or treatment as usual. The evidence for internet delivered text-based treatments was not of high quality (3 studies). There were too few studies of this modality, and their quality was low. And so, the authors determined that the evidence for text-based therapy was unknown.

Practice Implications

Research on telepsychology interventions is still quite new with a limited number of quality studies attesting to their efficacy. Nevertheless, the findings were promising for telephone delivered psychotherapy and videoconferencing telepsychology, such that psychotherapists can be reasonably confident in using these methods with clients. Text-based delivery of interventions had limited and poor-quality evidence. Psychotherapists should: first and foremost follow their regulatory college requirements for using telepsychology, check with their liability insurance providers, assess if their telepsychology platform is HIPPA compliant, assess if their clients are suitable for this modality, and follow best practices when using telepsychology.

Timuluk, L. & Keogh, D. (2017). The client’s perspective on (experiences of) psychotherapy: A practice-friendly review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 73, 1556-1567.

Psychotherapy studies that ask clients for their perspective on the treatment or therapist are surprisingly rare. Researchers have conducted such studies over many decades, but there exist very few of them. This is curious given that respecting clients’ preferences for types of therapy or for therapists’ behaviors is predictive of good mental health outcomes. Giving voice to clients’ perspectives is consistent with the notion that psychotherapy is a co-constructed endeavour rather than something that a therapist does to a client (as is the case for a medical intervention). In this review, Timuluk and Keogh review the research in which patients were interviewed for their perspective on a wide range of aspects of psychotherapy. The research indicates a number of things that clients value, that help, and that hinder their progress in therapy. Clients value a number of therapist traits like friendliness, warmth, respect, offering appropriate guidance, and understanding. This research showed that clients recognize that the relationship (i.e., the alliance) has therapeutic effects. Clients report that many forms of therapist behaviors help to develop a therapeutic alliance including eye contact, smiling, warm personalized greetings, paraphrasing, identifying client feelings, and referring to material from previous sessions. Clients find some events in therapy to be unhelpful or that hinder their progress, like feeling exposed and unprotected, being emotionally overwhelmed, and feeling misunderstood by the therapist.

Practice Implications

Although clients do value therapist expertise in applying therapeutic techniques, they hold therapist personal qualities like warmth, authenticity, honesty, and dedication as necessary prerequisites for therapy. Clients view the therapist’s interpersonal manner as key to forming a therapeutic relationship. It is important that therapists are aware of how they feel towards a client (countertransference), and how these feelings might impact the way in which they communicate through body language, tone of voice, and behaviors. Effective therapists are willing to seek their client’s perspectives, and are open and non-defensive about what a client has to say about the therapy or therapist, even if negative. Therapist openness to feedback will inevitably lead to a stronger relationship and collaboration with the client, and to better outcomes for the client.

Cuijpers, P. (2020) Measuring success in the treatment of depression: What is most important to patients? Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 20, 123-125.

There is lots of evidence now that psychotherapies of various types are efficacious for the treatment of depression. Psychotherapy trials focus largely on depressive symptoms, and define major depression according to psychiatric diagnostic manuals. However, the diagnosis of major depression, for example, is not a unitary construct. That is, it is simply a collection of symptoms and signs that are purported to make up a category of disorder. In fact, people with major depression are quite varied on a whole range of things, like severity, coping style, motivation, attachment style, personality, and extent of comorbidity with other diagnoses. This means that many psychotherapy studies may be focusing on patient outcomes (i.e., reduction of depressive symptoms) that may or may not be important to patients. In this paper, Cuijpers reviews the literature on what patients want from psychotherapy. He found that while symptom reduction was important to patients with depressive disorders, it was not the only outcome they wanted from psychotherapy. Patients also want to have a more fulfilling lives, to return to productive work, to solve conflicts with close loved ones, to learn to live with a chronic disability or disease, to learn to handle the effects of trauma, and other quality of life issues. Fortunately, some studies do report the effects of psychotherapy on quality of life, social functioning, anxiety, hopelessness, and interpersonal problems. However, even these studies treat such outcomes as if they were uniformly important to all patients in the study. Very few studies take a personalized approach to patient outcomes, in which the outcomes of interest are those determined by each patient specific to their own circumstances and wishes.

Practice Implications

Psychotherapists who practice from an evidence-informed perspective often try to measure outcomes in their own practices using reliable measurements. However, many of these measurements may be too general for any specific patient, or they may represent outcomes that do not align with what the individual patient wants. Practicing clinicians who assess outcomes in their own practices, may want to consider supplementing standard symptom outcome measures with more personalized assessments for patients.

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.

Courtois, C. A. & Brown, L. S. (2019). Guideline orthodoxy and resulting limitations of the American Psychological Association’s Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of PTSD in Adults. Psychotherapy, 56(3), 329-339.

Recently the American Psychological Association (APA) published clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The reaction from the clinical community that treats those with PTSD, client groups, and from many academic and research quarters was swift and negative. APA received almost 900 comments in their public consultations from many who felt the document was overly prescriptive, overly symptom-focused, and narrow in its recommendations. In this interesting inside look at the process, the Chair of the PTSD Practice Guidelines Committee (Christine Courtois) and a senior member of the Committee (Laura Brown) wrote a scathing commentary of the process imposed on them by APA that constrained the Committee’s access to information which affected their decisions. The Committee was bound by APA’s use of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) rules for developing practice guidelines. In other words, a psychological organization (APA) used a biomedical model to define what is relevant research, how to define treatment, what is an appropriate outcome, and how to decide on recommendations. As a result, the APA Committee reached several conclusions/decisions that were biased or premature. First, they defined PTSD only by its symptom presentation and not for the complex disorder that it is. In other words, PTSD was viewed almost exclusively from within a framework that defined it as only a fear-based response to a stressor. Such an approach downplays any developmental or attachment-related factors in the genesis or maintenance of PTSD. Second, the Committee was instructed to ignore a vast array of research on therapist factors, relationship factors, and client factors in psychotherapy. This runs counter to many clinicians’ views that one cannot engage in technical interventions related to PTSD symptoms without the patient experiencing a heightened sense of security in their relationship with the therapist. This also meant that the Committee largely ignored cultural and diversity factors. Third, the treatment recommendations focused on time-limited exposure-based interventions – which is a natural outcome of the first two decisions (i.e., seeing PTSD as only fear-based, ignoring issues of development, and ignoring relational factors in the treatment context). The authors were also disappointed that the APA ignored its own policy on evidence-based practice that puts equal weight on research, clinician expertise, and client factors when making clinical decisions. In the end the authors clearly were not confident in the narrow focus of the Clinical Practice Guideline, and they were concerned that clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and third party funders could misuse the Guideline to limit research, theory, and funding.

Practice Implications

In this extraordinary piece, the Chair and a senior committee member of the PTSD Practice Guideline Committee were highly critical of the process and outcome of APA’s effort to develop clinical practice guidelines for PTSD. The authors did not diminish the importance of exposure-based interventions for PTSD, however they did argue that these interventions must be offered only after clinicians take a sufficient amount of time to create a clinical context characterized by clients experiencing heightened safety in the therapeutic relationship, and to into account client preferences and culture. Further, clinicians should be highly sensitive to attachment-related insecurities and developmental traumas that may lengthen the treatment and that may have a complicating impact on the therapeutic relationship.

Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2019). Relationships and responsiveness in the psychological treatment of trauma: The tragedy of the APA Clinical Practice Guideline. Psychotherapy, 56(3), 391-399.

The American Psychological Association’s (APA) Clinical Practice Guideline for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Adults published in 2017 was met with a great deal of concern and criticism by the community of scholars and practitioners working with patients with PTSD. A key concern was that the APA used a biomedical model and not a psychological or contextual model in guiding their understanding of PTSD, their approach to what constitutes evidence, and to decisions about recommended treatments. In particular, the biomedical approach focuses almost exclusively on treatment methods, and down-plays the context of treatment (i.e., the relationship, patient factors, and therapist responsiveness). In this critique, Norcross and Wampold highlight the flaws in the APA Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD, and the authors focus specifically on those variables that are known to predict patient outcomes but that were ignored by the Guideline. Norcross and Wampold highlighted that there exists numerous meta analyses that demonstrate that all bona fide psychotherapies work about equally well for trauma, and that the particular treatment method has little impact on PTSD outcomes. Yet, the restrictive review process undertaken by APA all but ignored this well-established finding. Also ignored was the research on the importance of the therapeutic relationship in the treatment of trauma. One review outlined nineteen studies that found that the therapeutic alliance was associated with or predicted reduction in PTSD symptoms. This is consistent with the general psychotherapy research literature, in which the alliance is the most researched and most reliable factor related to patient outcomes. Also missing from the PTSD Guideline was reference to a large body of research on therapist responsiveness to patient characteristics. Patients are more likely to improve if their therapists can adapt to the patient’s coping style, culture, preferences, level of resistance, and stage of change. In one study of cognitive-processing therapy (CPT; a treatment recommended by the APA Guideline), there were substantial differences between therapists in their patient’s PTSD symptom outcomes. That is, some therapists reliably were more effective than others, even though all therapists were trained in and supervised in providing the same manualized evidence-based treatment. Among the identified skills of the most effective CPT therapists were: a flexible interpersonal style, and an ability to develop and maintain a good therapeutic alliance across patients.

Practice Implications

There is growing consensus that the APA Clinical Practice Guideline for PTSD are based on dubious methodology and are of limited use to therapists and their patients with PTSD. Psychotherapists should practice a bona-fide therapy for PTSD, but should do so by taking into account the treatment context. In other words, more effective therapists are good at developing, maintaining, and repairing the therapeutic alliance across a range of patients. Effective therapists can also respond and adapt to patient characteristics such as level of resistance, coping style, culture, and stage of change. And so, even when providing a treatment based on the APA Guideline, therapists should nurture trust in the therapeutic relationship and be adaptive to their patients’ characteristics.