Preliminary results of a video-assisted psychotherapist workshop in alliance strategies

Therapeutic Alliance Between Dietitians and Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: The Effect of Training in a Health Behavior Change Intervention

BACKGROUND

The relationship between a clinician and their client-the "therapeutic alliance" is a robust predictor of outcome in healthcare settings; yet, few interventions to improve alliance have been tested. Motivational interviewing is a client-centered approach that embodies many principles and strategies consistent with a strong therapeutic alliance.

PURPOSE

To examine whether alliance is enhanced by training dietitians to deliver a motivational interviewing informed health behavior change intervention ("Eating as Treatment"; EAT) as part of routine consultations with patients with head and neck cancer. The predictive ability of motivational interviewing techniques was also assessed.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of the EAT stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiotherapy (n = 307) were treated by radiotherapy dietitians (n = 29) during the control (Treatment as Usual) or intervention (EAT) phase. Alliance was rated during the first and final weeks of radiotherapy, and again 4 and 12 weeks post-radiotherapy. Dietetic sessions were audiotaped. Week one sessions were objectively rated for dietitians' use of motivational interviewing techniques.

RESULTS

Generalized linear-mixed effects regressions found no effect of EAT on dietitian-rated alliance (p = .237). After excluding outliers, patient-rated alliance was 0.29 points lower after EAT training (p = .016). Post hoc analyses revealed lower patient ratings on perceived support and dietitian confidence. Hierarchical multiple regressions found that no specific motivational interviewing techniques predicted patient-rated alliance. Dietitian acknowledgment of patient challenges was related to dietitian-rated alliance (β =.15, p =.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient and dietitian ratings of alliance were high after EAT training, but not significantly improved. Further research is needed to better understand the differential impact of intervention training and delivery on patient and clinician ratings of therapeutic alliance.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

Trial registration number ACTRN12613000320752.

Confessions of a New York rupture researcher: An insider's guide and critique

OBJECTIVE

The study of alliance rupture has become quite prevalent since 1990 and especially in the past 10 years where we have seen a noticeable surge in empirical publications on the subject. This honorary paper attempts to provide a critical review of this literature from the perspective of someone who has contributed to it in his collaborative work on a research program designed to investigate ruptures and to develop intervention and training models to resolve them.

METHOD

This paper is organized into three topics or sections: (1) alliance rupture, (2) rupture resolution, and (3) alliance training; and it addresses definitions, findings, questions, and lessons with regard to each topic.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

It suggests some clinical conceptualizations (concerning agency and communion as well as mutual recognition), training implications (regarding emotion regulation and deliberate practice), and methodological considerations (promoting pluralism and contextualism), along with future directions.

Clinical Consensus Strategies to Repair Ruptures in the Therapeutic Alliance

Objective

The alliance been recognized as an essential common factor and robust predictor of outcome. The present study sought to further our knowledge of the alliance and to promote the integration of research and practice by assessing consensus among peer-nominated expert therapists of varying theoretical orientations on the effectiveness of clinical strategies to repair alliance ruptures.

Method

This study drew on the behavioral-analytic model (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969) and the methodology of the Expert Consensus Guideline Series (Frances, Docherty, & Kahn 1997). In Phase I, 69 therapists submitted clinical situations describing alliance ruptures. In Phase II, 177 therapists generated responses to the situations, and clinical strategies underlying the responses were identified. In Phase III, 134 peer-nominated experts (a mean of 22.3 therapists per situation) rated the effectiveness of these clinical strategies.

Results

The experts reached consensus on the use of strategies that validated the client's experience and explored the rupture during the rupture session. Change-oriented interventions (e.g., changing interpersonal interactions; highlighting patterns of behavior, thought, or emotions) were generally rated as less effective to use during the rupture, but effective for use in future sessions.

Conclusions

The findings are consistent with the growing literature on the value of using certain alliance-focused interventions during a rupture. The findings point to the importance of therapists' awareness of the state of the alliance so that they can identify when ruptures are occurring.

Clinicians' attitudes toward therapeutic alliance in E-therapy

Although therapeutic alliance is a crucial factor in face-to-face therapies, no data exist on clinicians' attitudes towards alliance in E-therapy. The study explored clinicians' perceived importance of alliance in E-therapy, clinicians' confidence in their skills to develop alliance in E-therapy, and whether attitudes towards alliance in E-therapy are associated with intended E-therapy practice. Clinicians (n = 106) responded to an online survey. The majority of clinicians considered alliance to be extremely important in both face-to-face therapy and E-therapy. However, clinicians' ratings of the importance of alliance in face-to-face therapies were significantly higher than their ratings of the importance of alliance in E-therapy. Clinicians reported less confidence in their skills to develop alliance in E-therapy than in face-to-face therapy. Intended E-therapy practice correlated with confidence in one's ability to develop alliance in E-therapy and with previous E-therapy practice.

A translational model of research-practice integration

We propose a four-level, recursive Research-Practice Integration framework as a heuristic to (a) integrate and reflect on the articles in this Special Section as contributing to a bidirectional bridge between research and practice, and (b) consider additional opportunities to address the research-practice gap. Level 1 addresses Treatment Validation studies and includes an article by Lochman and colleagues concerning the programmatic adaptation, implementation, and dissemination of the empirically supported Coping Power treatment program for youth aggression. Level 2 translation, Training in Evidence-Based Practice, includes a paper by Hershenberg, Drabick, and Vivian, which focuses on the critical role that predoctoral training plays in bridging the research-practice gap. Level 3 addresses the Assessment of Clinical Utility and Feedback to Research aspects of translation. The articles by Lambert and Youn, Kraus, and Castonguay illustrate the use of commercial outcome packages that enable psychotherapists to integrate ongoing client assessment, thus enhancing the effectiveness of treatment implementation and providing data that can be fed back to researchers. Lastly, Level 4 translation, the Cross-Level Integrative Research and Communication, concerns research efforts that integrate data from clinical practice and all other levels of translation, as well as communication efforts among all stakeholders, such as researchers, psychotherapists, and clients. Using a two-chair technique as a framework for his discussion, Wolfe's article depicts the struggle inherent in research-practice integration efforts and proposes a rapprochement that highlights advancements in the field.