Evidence of a Pronounced Preference for Therapy Guided by Common Factors

Do clients train therapists to become eclectic and use the common factors? A qualitative study listening to experienced psychotherapists

BACKGROUND

Psychotherapists must choose from an overwhelming number of theoretical models and empirically supported treatments to guide their work. Meta-analytic studies show there is comparable efficacy among the choices, making the decision about which approach to use difficult. Research indicates there are pantheoretical elements found in all effective models, called the common factors, which can offer psychotherapists a focusing point to maximize their effectiveness regardless of their chosen approach. Most psychotherapists begin practicing from a traditional theoretical orientation, but then their approach evolves over time toward an unintentional eclecticism, derived primarily from their practice experience with clients.

METHODS

This exploratory qualitative study conducted in-depth interviews with six experienced clinical social workers about their evolution as psychotherapists and what they believe creates change in psychotherapy. The interviews were conducted using standardized prompts and then coded and analyzed utilizing thematic analysis based on a six-phase framework.

RESULTS

The analysis suggests the psychotherapists had evolved to conducting therapy via an implicit and unique approach based on an unintentional heavy use of common factors. Five prominent themes emerged as central components of change in psychotherapy: the therapeutic relationship as a primary change agent, the importance of the therapist genuineness, the need to acknowledge and act upon a poor therapist-client match, the client bearing the primary responsibility for change, and the therapists' development of unintended eclecticism in response to client interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

In practice, most psychotherapists start practicing from a traditional theoretical orientation only to find their approach evolves over time toward an informal eclecticism featuring common factors. This common factors-based eclecticism emerges primarily from practice experience with clients. These findings suggest an avenue for further inquiry-if psychotherapists are going to gradually evolve in an unplanned eclectic direction guided by their client interactions, are they also concurrently and inherently drawn to the common factors? If the answer proves to be yes, what are the implications for early training? Should the gradual emphasis toward common factors be supplanted with a more intentional and efficient focus on them in the training of students and early career clinicians?

Differences in psychotherapy preferences between psychotherapy trainees and laypeople

Despite increasing research on psychotherapy preferences, the preferences of psychotherapy trainees are largely unknown. Moreover, differences in preferences between trainees and their patients could (a) hinder symptom improvement and therapy success for patients and (b) represent significant obstacles in the early career and development of future therapists.

We compared the preferences of n = 466 psychotherapy trainees to those of n = 969 laypersons using the Cooper-Norcross Inventory of Preferences. Moreover, we compared preferences between trainees in cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and psychodynamic trainees.

We found significant differences between both samples in 13 of 18 items, and three of four subscales. Psychotherapy trainees preferred less therapist directiveness (d = 0.58), more emotional intensity (d = 0.74), as well as more focused challenge (d = 0.35) than laypeople. CBT trainees preferred more therapist directiveness (d = 2.00), less emotional intensity (d = 0.51), more present orientation (d = 0.76) and more focused challenge (d = 0.33) than trainees in psychodynamic/psychoanalytic therapy.

Overall, the results underline the importance of implementing preference assessment and discussion during psychotherapy training. Moreover, therapists of different orientations seem to cover a large range of preferences for patients, in order to choose the right fit.

Understanding of evidence-based mental health care and the perceived importance of scientific information in a sample of U.S. adults

OBJECTIVES

This online survey sought to qualitatively ascertain the extent to which a sample of U.S. adults understood the concept of evidence-based mental health care (EBMHC). Additional goals included assessing the perceived importance of scientific information in EBMHC, and examining whether understanding EBMHC and science values varied as a function of participant factors.

METHOD

Participants (N = 221) defined EBMHC and rated the importance of scientific information. Open-ended EBMHC definitions were content-coded, and binomial logistic and linear regressions examined predictors of accurately defining EBMHC and of the perceived importance of scientific information.

RESULTS

Participants endorsed seven definitions of EBMHC, and only 20% defined it accurately. Having greater knowledge about mental health conditions was associated with understanding EBMHC and with the higher perceived importance of scientific information. Greater help-seeking efficacy also predicted higher perceived importance of scientific information.

CONCLUSIONS

Results support customized strategies to promote basic EBMHC education among U.S. adults.

National attitudes towards mental health treatment: the importance of research evidence

Most conceptualizations of evidence-based practice view it as a "three legged stool" consisting of: the use of best available research evidence, clinical expertise, and client preferences. Although empirical evidence and clinical expertise have received greater empirical attention, relatively little research has systematically explored client preferences. The present study analyzed self-reported treatment preferences for various clinical and non-clinical presentations. Adult participants (n = 1262) residing in the United States were presented with diagnostic vignettes and rated their relative preferences among 5 treatment variables, including: use of an empirically supported treatment (EST), quality of the client-therapist relationship, therapist empathy, therapist experience, and client speaking for the majority of therapy sessions. Results indicated that participants endorsed significant preference for receiving an EST over other treatment variables for all clinical disorders, with effect sizes ranging from small to large depending on the diagnosis. There was slightly greater variability in treatment preferences for non-clinical issues, though participants generally reported greater preference for receiving an EST. Follow-up questions provided further evidence for EST preferences. The implications of these results are discussed.

The relative importance of relational and scientific characteristics of psychotherapy: Perceptions of community members vs. therapists

Although client preferences are an integral component of evidence-based practice in psychology (American Psychological Association, 2006), relatively little research has examined what potential mental health consumers value in the psychotherapy they may receive. The present study was conducted to examine community members' preferences for the scientific and relational aspects of psychotherapy for different types of presenting problems, and how accurately therapists perceive these preferences. Community members (n = 200) were surveyed about the importance of scientific (e.g., demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials) and relational (e.g., therapist empathy) characteristics of psychotherapy both for anxiety disorders (e.g., obsessive-compulsive disorder) and disorder-nonspecific issues (e.g., relationship difficulties). Therapists (n = 199) completed the same survey and responded how they expected the average mental health consumer would. Results showed that although community members valued relational characteristics significantly more than scientific characteristics, the gap between these two was large for disorder-nonspecific issues (d = 1.24) but small for anxiety disorders (d = .27). Community members rated scientific credibility as important across problem types. Therapists significantly underestimated the importance of scientific characteristics to community members, particularly in the treatment of disorder-nonspecific issues (d = .74). Therapists who valued research less in their own practice were more likely to underestimate the importance of scientific credibility to community members. The implications of the present findings for understanding the nature of client preferences in evidence-based psychological practice are discussed.