When and for whom do psychodynamic therapists use guided imagery? Explicating practitioners' tacit knowledge

Guided imagery psychotherapy (GIP) is an established therapeutic method using creative mental imagery within a psychodynamic frame of reference. Although there is evidence for the method's general effectiveness, it is yet unclear under which conditions and for which patients it should be used. The aim of this study was therefore to empirically identify indication criteria for the use of guided affective imagery (GAI) as part of psychodynamic therapies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with N=15 psychodynamic therapists also qualified as GAI training therapists. We asked them to recollect cases in which they had decided either for or against the use of imagery. The therapists described a complex interplay of different factors. Using grounded theory coding supplemented by elements of Consensual Qualitative Research we reconstructed from their accounts a sequential model of their indicative decisions. First, there is a consideration of clear contraindications related to reality testing and destructiveness. Second, there are aspects requiring a modified application of GAI such as emotional instability and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. In a final step, there are a number of characteristics of the patient, the therapist, the therapeutic relationship, the patients' initial imagery and different therapeutic goals and foci which are weighed relatively to each other in order for therapists to reach an indication decision. We end by discussing ways in which the indicative decision model may be used to improve GAI training as well as the method's differential efficacy and effectiveness.

Inpatient or day clinic treatment? Results of a multi-site-study

Objective: This naturalistic study aimed to identify criteria which are of relevance for making a decision as to whether inpatient or day hospital treatment is indicated.

Methods: In 567 patients who were consecutively admitted to 10 departments of psychosomatic medicine (day hospital or inpatient setting) in Germany, symptom severity at admission and discharge was measured (Symptom-Check-List-90-R, Global Assessment of Functioning). Before admission, clinicians rated aspects that might be important for differential indication (Rating Scale of Indication Criteria). A regression analysis was conducted to reveal relationships between outcome in each setting and possible predictors (criteria of relevance).

Results: At admission inpatients and day clinic patients already showed some differences referring to aspects clinicians used to select patients for each setting. Good outcome in day hospital patients was associated with a high motivation and higher burdens at home, whereas reduced drive and loss of interest was correlated with a less favourable course. Inpatients did less well if their symptoms were triggered by situations at home and if they showed a high potential for regression.

Conclusion: Results give first hints for criteria which are relevant for making a decision between inpatient and day hospital treatment in psychosomatic medicine.