Alliance and symptom improvement in inpatient treatment for eating disorder patients: A study of within-patient processes

Development of the Therapeutic Alliance in Alternative Settings to Psychiatric Hospitalization: An Open Comparative Study

Patient-therapist alliance in two alternative treatment settings developed similarly to that in traditional psychiatric hospitalization.

A baseline comparison of three diagnostic groups using the Progress Monitoring Tool for Eating Disorders

Utilisation of intensive inpatient treatment for eating disorders (EDs) has climbed in the last decade, illuminating a need for better consensus on what constitutes effective treatment and context-appropriate progress/outcome monitoring during residential stays. The novel Progress Monitoring Tool for Eating Disorders (PMED) measure is specifically designed for inpatient settings. Previous research supports the factorial validity and internal consistency of the PMED; however, additional work is needed to determine its appropriateness for complex patient populations. This study used measurement invariance (MI) testing to determine if the PMED administered at programme admission measures the same items in similar ways across patients with anorexia nervosa restricting- and binge-purge subtypes (AN-R; AN-BP) and bulimia nervosa (BN, N = 1121; M_age  = 24.33 years, SD = 10.20; 100% female). Progressively constrained models were used to determine the level of invariance upheld between the three groups. Results indicated that, while the PMED meets configural and metric MI, it does not display scalar invariance. Said otherwise, the PMED similarly assesses constructs and items across AN-R, AN-BP, and BN, however the same score overall may reflect different levels of psychopathology for patients in one diagnostic category versus another. Comparisons of severity between different EDs should be made with caution, however the PMED appears to be a sound tool for understanding the baseline functioning of patients with EDs in an inpatient setting.

The alliance in mental health care: conceptualization, evidence and clinical applications

The concept of alliance reflects the collaborative relationship between a clinician and a patient, defined as consisting of three elements: a) the agreement on the goals of treatment; b) the agreement on a task or series of tasks; c) the development of a bond. Although much of the theory and research on the alliance comes from the domain of psychotherapy, the concept is applicable to any practice involving a person seeking help and a socially sanctioned healer. An extensive research evidence suggests that the alliance (typically measured at the third or fourth session) is a robust predictor of the outcomes of various forms of psychotherapy, even when prior symptom improvement and other factors are considered. Both the clinician and the patient bring to the therapy situation different capacities to form an alliance. Factors concerning the patient include, among others, the diagnosis, attachment history and style, motivation, and needs for affiliation. However, the benefits of the alliance have been found to be mostly due to the therapist's contribution, in particular his/her facilitative interpersonal skills, including verbal fluency, communication of hope and positive expectations, persuasiveness, emotional expression; warmth, acceptance and understanding; empathy, and alliance rupture-repair responsiveness. Placebo studies have allowed to experimentally manipulate aspects of the relationship between a therapist and a patient in non-psychotherapy contexts. In these settings, two components of the relationship have emerged: an emotional one (involving being cared for and understood by the clinician) and a cognitive one (including the belief in the competence of the therapist to select and administer an effective treatment). Here we propose a model that describes three pathways through which the alliance creates benefits, named CARE (caring, attentive, real and empathic), EXPECTANCY, and SPECIFIC. Although research and clinical attention have mostly focused on the alliance between a clinician and a patient in face-to-face interactions, there is preliminary evidence concerning the alliance between patients and other clinic staff, systems of care, or the program in Internet-mediated services. These new research areas clearly require further development.

It's the therapist and the treatment: The structure of common therapeutic relationship factors

Objective: Prior research has established that common therapeutic relationship factors are potent predictors of change in psychotherapy, but such factors are typically studied one at a time and their underlying structure when studied simultaneously is not clear. We assembled empirically validated relationship factors (e.g., therapist empathy; patient expectations; agreement about goals) into a single instrument and subjected it to factor analysis. Method: The instrument was applied to patients (N = 332) undergoing intensive psychotherapy of different types for depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and childhood trauma in an inpatient specialized mental health setting. In order to examine the psychometric properties of the scale, we used half the sample (N=164) to conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and parallel analysis before we tested the solution using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) on the second half of the sample (N=168). Measurement invariance analysis was conducted to examine the stability of the factor structure. Results: The analysis yielded two factors, which were termed 1. "Confidence in the therapist" and 2. "Confidence in the treatment." Discussion: When assessed simultaneously, patients differentiate between their evaluation of the therapist and of the treatment. The results indicate that there is substantial overlap among previously established relationship factors.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03503981.

Correlation structure in hierarchical linear modelling: An illustration with the therapeutic alliance

Previous studies have found an association between therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome, but only recently have researchers begun to analyse time-lagged relationships between session-to-session measures of alliance and outcomes with hierarchical linear modelling (HLM). HLM assumes simple correlation structures between any two measurements from the same client. In this paper, we suggest that this assumption might be problematic. Session-to-session measurements of outcomes (Outcome Questionnaire-10.2) and alliance (Working Alliance Inventory) in a sample (N = 63) were used to perform HLM analyses to test time-lagged (lag +1) relations between outcomes and alliance in both directions. A first set of analyses replicated the models consistently used in the literature, whereas a second set of models considered a correlation structure as a function of time. A correlation independent of time distance resulted in a bidirectional influence between alliance and outcomes (the model commonly used in the literature), but when considering a correlation structure as a function of time, only the outcomes were predictive of alliance. Considering a more complex correlation structure as a function of time seems to be an important analytical strategy for addressing the issue of variability in within-client measurements over time. This study highlights how the misspecification of a statistical model, namely, not considering a time-dependent correlation structure of the response variable, may lead to misleading findings in HLM studies. This is particularly relevant in process-outcome research, such as studies analysing the impact of therapeutic alliance on clinical outcomes.