Does Disclosure About the Common Factors Affect Laypersons' Opinions About How Cognitive Behavioral Psychotherapy Works?

Psychotherapy is still failing patients: revisiting informed consent-a response to Garson Leder

Compared with mainstream medicine and complementary and alternative therapies, the practice of psychotherapy has enjoyed a relative pass when it comes to ethical evaluation. Therefore, contributions to the, although slowly growing, body of literature on psychotherapy ethics are to be welcomed. In his paper 'Psychotherapy, placebos, and informed consent', Garson Leder takes issue with what he calls the 'go open' project in psychotherapy ethics-the idea that the so-called 'common factors' in therapy should be disclosed to prospective patients. Although Leder does not give a detailed list, the common factors include therapist characteristics (empathy, positive regard, positive expectations that therapy will succeed), patient characteristics (expectations about therapy including its plausibility, confidence in the therapist), and the working alliance (how well both therapist and patient work well together during sessions). He argues that the project advocating disclosure of these factors is flawed on two grounds: (1) that information about common factors is not necessary for informed consent; and (2) clarity about specific mechanisms of change in therapy is consistent with 'many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy'. There are multiple serious problems with Leder's critique of the recent literature, including how he represents the contours of the debate, which I list, and address in this response.

How do people feel about the possibility that a treatment might not outperform simulated and inert treatments?

BACKGROUND

Many treatments in common use are not proved better than simulated or inert treatments. While some clinicians express little concern about whether a particular treatment has a direct effect on the pathophysiology believed to be causing symptoms, we wonder if patients would agree.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Are there factors independently associated with the affirmation that it is OK if a treatment is proved not to outperform simulated or inert treatment (a placebo) measured on an 11-point ordinal scale, including the risk and invasiveness of the treatment? And, are there factors independently associated with the affirmation that the clinician should inform a patient about the degree to which a given treatment is known to outperform simulated or inert treatments?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We asked 763 English-speaking people their willingness to accept unproved treatment, depending on variations in risk, and invasiveness and their opinion regarding the importance of clinicians informing them whether a given treatment is proved to outperform simulated and inert (placebo) treatment.

RESULTS

Acceptance of the unproved treatment was quite low, more so with greater risk and invasiveness. Lower acceptance of unproved treatment was associated with older age, more education, and unemployment. People rated it quite important (mean 7.3 out of 10) that clinicians inform patients if treatments are no better than placebo, no matter the risk of the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

People want to be informed if a treatment is not proved to outperform nonspecific effects such as the placebo effect.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable.

Attitudes About Informed Consent: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of UK Psychotherapy Trainees

Background: Ethical informed consent to psychotherapy has recently been the subject of in-depth analysis among healthcare ethicists. Objective: This study aimed to explore counseling and psychotherapy students' views and understanding about informed consent to psychological treatments. Methods: Two focus groups were conducted with a total of 10 students enrolled in a Masters course in counseling and psychotherapy at a British university. Questions concerned participants' understanding of informed consent including judgments about client capacity; the kinds of information that should be disclosed; how consent might be obtained; and their experiences of informed consent, both as a client and as a therapist. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Coding was conducted independently by three authors. Results: Comments were classified into three main themes: (1) the reasons and justifications for informed consent; (2) informed consent processes; and (3) the hidden ethics curriculum. Some trainees expressed significant doubts about the importance of informed consent. However, participants also identified the need to establish the clients' voluntariness and their right to be informed about confidentiality issues. In general, the format and processes pertaining to informed consent raised considerable questions and uncertainties. Participants were unsure about rules surrounding client capacity; expressed misgivings about describing treatment techniques; and strikingly, most trainees were skeptical about the clinical relevance of the evidence-base in psychotherapy. Finally, trainees' experiences as clients within obligatory psychotherapy sessions were suggestive of a "hidden ethics curriculum"-referring to the unintended transmission of norms and practices within training that undermine the explicit guidance expressed in formal professional ethics codes. Some students felt coerced into therapy, and some reported not undergoing informed consent processes. Reflecting on work placements, trainees expressed mixed views, with some unclear about who was responsible for informed consent. Conclusions: This qualitative study presents timely information on psychotherapy students' views about informed consent to psychotherapy. Major gaps in students' ethical, conceptual, and procedural knowledge were identified, and comments suggested the influence of a hidden curriculum in shaping norms of practice. Implications: This exploratory study raises important questions about the preparedness of psychotherapy students to fulfill their ethical obligations.