Will patients accept randomization to psychoanalysis? A feasibility study

[Quality characteristics and relevance to care of psychodynamic training outpatient clinics:The QVA Project]

Introduction: Quality assurance (QA) in outpatient psychotherapy is currently undergoing a process of change. Hitherto, QA has been conducted by means of an expert review procedure (the so-called "Gutachterverfahren"), inter- and supervision as well as further mandatory training. Data-based QA systems have been increasingly discussed in recent years. On behalf of the G-BA, the IQTIG has recently published a draft of a legally binding QA procedure, which has, however, raised substantial concerns and resistance. Design: TheQVA project has two objectives. First, it provides participating training outpatient clinics with a data-driven QA system that enables an automated and risk-adjusted overall evaluation based on relevant patient and referral parameters. Second, the data is used to conduct research on important issues regarding the relevant psychotherapeutic care provided by outpatient clinics. Results: Since the start of data collection in 2022, n = 2058 patients have been recruited so far (March 2023), and a complete baseline diagnostic report has been generated for n = 1112 patients. The cross-sectional analyses of all patients assessed so far show a high burden of depression, interpersonal problems and impaired quality of life with severe impairment of personality functions, pronounced conflict diagnosis and high utilization of inpatient and day hospital treatments. Discussion: This paper describes an easy-to-implement data-based QA system for psychodynamic training outpatient clinics, while at the same time allowing for the examination of healthcare- relevant questions in a large sample. The first experiences show that the system works technically stable and was well-received by the participating outpatient clinics.

Can we differentiate between psychoanalytic and psychodynamic psychotherapy? - An empirical investigation of therapists' self-reports

Therapy differentiation is a crucial component of psychotherapy research. It refers to whether inspected treatments differ from one another. In the history of psychoanalysis, the differentiation between psychodynamic and analytic psychotherapy was often discussed but seldom inspected empirically. In this study, we propose a set of items which should in theory offer the possibility to differentiate between psychodynamic and analytic psychotherapy on session level. We inspect these items using therapists' self-reports concerning N = 295 cases of different psychodynamic and analytic therapies. Results of an exploratory factor analysis and subsequent inspections of the psychodynamic and analytic items in different forms of therapies strengthen the usability of these items for differentiating between psychodynamic and analytic therapy. However, further studies using different perspectives (e. g., observer ratings) are essential. The presented items are a promising step towards the development of an instrument for treatment differentiation which could later be used in treatment comparison studies.

Psychoanalytic Techniques in Different Psychoanalytically Oriented Psychotherapies - An Analysis of Therapists' Self-Reports

OBJECTIVES

Psychotherapy approaches based on psychoanalytic thinking which also modify standard technique are on the rise. Despite various theoretical considerations, empirical research seldom inspected concepts of practicing therapists concerning technique in different psychoanalytically oriented approaches.

METHODS

In an online survey, 124 German psychoanalysts and psychodynamic therapists described their technique on a Psychoanalytic Technique Questionnaire in 295 therapy phases, subjectively assessed as good, of four therapy approaches varying in setting and duration.

RESULTS

Factor analysis extracted three therapeutic strategies: a classic, a clarifying, and a supportive technique. Linear mixed model analyses showed that, in therapies with a lower frequency of sessions and face-to-face setting as well as in shorter therapies, classic technique was less often and supportive technique more often used.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapists' concepts of different psychoanalytically oriented approaches mostly agree with theoretical assumptions. Future research could inspect patient characteristics associated with specific techniques and the consequences of technique use for treatment success.

Older adults and psychoanalytic treatment: it's about time

It has become increasingly apparent that older adults may not only benefit from psychoanalysis and psychodynamic psychotherapy but may be particularly well suited to such treatment. Clinical evidence to support this is presented, including discussion of the successful psychoanalysis of a woman in her seventies. An overview of the psychoanalytic literature indicates that psychoanalytic beliefs about the feasibility of treating older patients have always been favorable, but have had difficulty gaining traction. The modern psychoanalytic literature is compatible with extra-analytic studies of aging that provide further rationale for the potential usefulness of psychoanalytically oriented interventions in the elderly population.

[Psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic oriented psychotherapy: differences and similarities]

Psychoanalysis as well as Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy derived from Psychoanalysis are efficient methods offered by the Austrian health care system in the treatment for anxiety, depression, personality disorders, neurotic and somatoform disorders. In both methods similar basic treatment techniques are applied. Therefore differentiation between both treatment options often is made pragmatically by the frequency of sessions or the use of the couch and seems to be vague in the light of empirical studies. This overview focuses a potential differentiation-the objective and subjective dimensions of the indication process. Concerning the latter it is to investigate, if reflective functioning and ego-integration can be enhanced in the patient during the interaction process between patient and psychoanalyst. Empirical data underline the necessity to investigate to which extent externalizing defence processes are used and to integrate such factors into the decision and indication process. Differing treatment aims display another possibility to differentiate psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic psychotherapy aims for example more at circumscribed problem-foci, the capability for self-reflexion is one of the most prominent treatment effects in psychoanalysis that results in on-going symptom reduction and resilience. The most prominent differentiation lies in the utilization of technical neutrality. Within Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy neutrality has sometimes to be suspended in order to stop severe acting out. Empirical evidence is given concerning the differentiation between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy, that treatment efficacy is not correlated with the duration of the treatment, but with the frequency of sessions. Results give support to the assumption that the dosage of specific and appropriate psychoanalytic techniques facilitates sustained therapeutic change.

The development of a psychoanalytic outcome study: choices, conflicts, and consensus

This article tells the story of the development of an outcome study of psychoanalysis and describes the debate that took place over critical methodological issues. The protocol committee included career psychotherapy researchers who have conducted rigorous outcome studies, clinical psychoanalysts, study methodologists, and a statistician with clinical trial expertise. The committee worked for two years to develop the study design. This project is based on the premise that clinical psychoanalysis is a treatment. Areas specifically addressed are the goals and hypothesis of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, choice of psychotherapies as comparison treatments, definition of treatments and selection of therapists, use of medication, development of a treatment adherence measure, randomization of patient assignment vs. patient self-selection, and primary outcome measures. The execution of this outcome study will require significant effort and resources. A positive result would boost the standing of psychoanalysis, but the results may not support the primary hypothesis that there are therapeutic benefits unique to psychoanalysis and that psychoanalysis can effect demonstrable changes in a patient's mental life and adaptation that are not achieved by treatments of different orientation and/or lesser intensity. However, more important than whatever specific results emerge is what executing such a study requires of our field: the process of addressing the clinical issues that a study design requires, the creation of a network of analysts around the country working on a common project, and the joining of the clinical psychoanalytic community with a community of psychodynamic researchers.

Designs for studying the effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic treatments: balancing level of evidence and acceptability to patients

Long-Term Psychoanalytic Treatments (LTPT) include both long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP) and psychoanalysis (PsAn). Current opinion seems to be that there is some evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP, but none for that of PsAn. This may be due in part to researchers not balancing the level of evidence of randomized controlled studies (RCTs), cohort studies, and pre-post studies with patients' acceptance of these various research designs used in studying the effectiveness of LTPT. After a review of the merits of eight possible control conditions for LTPT in RCTs and cohort studies, and a consideration of the limitations and merits of pre-post studies, it was found that RCTs pair high levels of evidence with limited degrees of patient acceptance, especially where PsAn is concerned. Cohort studies appear to provide at most a moderate level of evidence. Their acceptability is hardly better than that of RCTs, as it depends on the acceptability of control conditions similar to those of RCTs. The acceptability of pre-post studies is much better, but they can provide, at most, a moderate level of evidence. Apart from randomization, they can meet all methodological criteria for high-quality research (often they do not, but there are ways to correct this). In summary, in the long-term treatment of complex mental disorders with LTPT, RCTs often pair a high level of evidence with limited patient acceptance of the method. Compared to RCTs, cohort studies show a lower level of evidence without much gain in acceptability. Pre-post studies pair the highest level of acceptability with the lowest level of evidence of the three designs. Limited acceptability is not to be confused with no acceptability, nor moderate level of evidence with none.