The Baader-Meinhof Effect in Trauma and Psychotherapy

August 28, 2019 By scottdm 35 Comments

Have you heard of the “Baader-Meinhof” effect? If not, I’m positive you’ll soon be seeing evidence of it everywhere.

That’s what “it” is, by the way — that curious experience of seeing something you’ve just noticed, been told of, or thought about, cropping up all around you. So …

You buy a car and suddenly it’s everywhere. That outfit you thought was so unique? Boom! Everyone is sporting it. How about the conversation you just had with your friend? You know, the one that was so stimulating and interesting? Now the subject is on everyone’s lips.

Depending on your level of self-esteem or degree of narcissism, Baader-Meinhof either leaves you feeling on the “cutting edge” of cultural trends or constantly lagging behind others. For me, it’s generally the latter. And recently, its a feeling that has been dogging me a fair bit.

The subject? Trauma.

Whether simple or complex, ongoing or one-off, experienced as a child or adult, trauma is the topic de jour — a cause célèbre linked to an ever-growing list of problems, including depression, anxiety, dissociation, insomnia, headaches, stomachaches, asthma, stroke, diabetes, and most recently, ADHD.

Then, of course, there are the offers for training. Is it just me or is trauma the subject of every other email solicitation, podcast announcement, and printed flyer?

The truth is our field has been here many times before. Over the last 25 years, depression, multiple personality disorder, rapid cycling bipolar disorder II, attention deficit disorder, and borderline personality disorder have all burst on the scene, enjoyed a period of intense professional interest, and then receded into the background.

Available evidence makes clear this pattern — aha, whoa, and hmm what’s next? — is far from benign. While identifying who is suffering and why is an important and noble endeavor, outcomes of mental healthcare have not improved over the last 40 years. What’s more, no evidence exists that training in treatment modalities specific to any particular diagnosis — the popularly-termed, “evidence-based” practices — improves effectiveness. Problematically, studies do show undergoing such training increases practitioner perception of enhanced competence (Neimeyer, Taylor, & Cox, 2012) .

On more than one occasion, I’ve witnessed advocates of particular treatment methods claim it’s unethical for a therapist to work with people who’ve experienced a trauma if they haven’t been trained in a specific “trauma-focused” approach. It’s a curious statement — one which, given the evidence, can only be meant to bully and shame practitioners into going along with the crowd. Data on the subject are clear and date back over a decade (1, 2, 3). In case of any doubt, a brand new review of the research, published in the journal Psychotherapy, concludes, “There are no clinically meaningful differences between … treatment methods for trauma … [including those] designed intentionally to omit components [believed essential to] effective treatments (viz., exposure, cognitive restructuring, and focus on trauma)” (p. 393).

If you find the results reported in the preceding paragraph confusing or unbelievable, recalling the “Baader-Meinhof” effect can be help. It reminds us that despite its current popularity in professional discourse, trauma and its treatment is nothing new. Truth is, therapists have always been helping those who’ve suffered its effects. More, while the field’s outcomes have not improved over time, studies of real world practitioners show they generally achieve results on par with those obtained in studies of so-called evidence-based treatments 1, 2, 3).

Of course, none of the foregoing means nothing can be done to improve our effectiveness. As my Swedish grandmother Stena used to say, “The room for improvement is the biggest one in our house!”

To get started, or fine tune your professional development efforts, listen in to an interview I did recently with Elizabeth Irias from Clearly Clinical (an approved provider of CEU’s for APA, NBCC, NAADAC, CCAPP, and CAMFT). Available here: What Every Therapist Needs To Know: Lessons From The Research, Ep. 61.

In it, I lay out several, concrete, evidence-based steps, practitioners can take to improve their therapeutic effectiveness. It’s FREE, plus you can earn a FREE hour of CE credit. Additionally, if follow them on Instagram and leave a comment on this post, you’ll be automatically entered into a contest for one year of free, unlimited continuing education — the winner to be announced on October 31st, 2019.

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

–

Responsiveness is “Job One” in Becoming a More Effective Therapist

June 28, 2019 By scottdm 4 Comments

Look at the picture to the left. What do you see?

In no time at all, most report a large face with deep set eyes and slight frown.

Actually, once seen, it’s difficult, if not impossible to unsee. Try it. Look away momentarily then back again.

Once set in motion, the process tends to take on a life of its own, with many other items coming into focus.

Do you see the ghostly hand? Skeletonized spine and rib cage? Other eyes and faces? A clown hat?

From an evolutionary perspective, the tendency to find patterns — be it in clouds, polished marble surfaces, burn marks on toast, or tea leaves in a cup — is easy to understand. For our earliest ancestors, seeing eyes in the underbrush, whether real or illusory, had obvious survival value. Whether or not the perceptions or predictions were accurate mattered less than the consequences of being wrong.

In short, we are hardwired to look for and find patterns. And, as researchers Foster and Kokko (2008) point out, “natural selection … favour[s] strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival …” (p. 36).

As proof of the tendency to draw incorrect causal associations, one need only look at the field’s most popular beliefs and practices, many of which, the evidence shows, have little or no relationship to outcome. These include:

Alas, all of the above, and more, are mere “faces in the clouds” — compelling to be sure, but more accurately seen as indicators of our desire to improve than reliable pathways to better results. They are not.

So, what, if anything, can we do to improve our effectiveness?

According to researchers Stiles and Horvath (2017), “Certain therapists are more effective than others … because [they are] appropriately responsive … providing each client with a different, individually tailored treatment” (p. 71).

Sounds good, right? The recommendation that one should “fit the therapy to the person” is as old as the profession. The challenge, of course, is knowing when to respond as well as whether any of the myriad “in-the-moment” adjustments we make in a given therapy hour actually help.

That is until now.

Consider a new study involving 100’s real world therapists and more than 10,000 of their clients (Brown and Cazauvielh, 2019). Intriguingly, the researchers found, therapists who were more “engaged” in formally seeking and utilizing feedback from their clients regarding progress and quality of care — as measured by the frequency with which they logged in to a computerized outcome management system to check their results — were significantly more effective.

How much, you ask?

Look at the graph above. With an effect size difference of .4 σ, the feedback-informed practitioners (green curve) were on average more effective than 70% of their less engaged, less responsive peers (the red).

Such findings confirm and extend results from another study I blogged about back in May documenting that feedback-informed treatment, or FIT, led to significant improvements in the quality and strength of the therapeutic alliance.

Why some choose to actively utilize feedback to inform and improve the quality and outcome of care, while others dutifully administer measurement scales but ignore the results is currently unknown — that is, scientifically. Could it really be that mysterious, however? Many of us have exercise equipment stuffed into closets bought in the moment but never used. In time, I suspect research will eventually point to the same factors responsible for implementation failures in other areas of life, both personal and professional (e.g., habit, lack of support, contextual barriers, etc.).

Until then, one thing we know helps is community. Having like-minded to interact with and share experiences makes a difference when it comes to staying on track. The International Center for Clinical Excellence is a free, social network with thousands of members around the world. Every day, practitioners, managers, and supervisors meet to address questions and provide support to one another in their efforts to implement feedback-informed treatment. Click on the link to connect today.

Still wanting more? Listen to my interview with Gay Barfield, Ph.D., a colleague of Carl Rogers, with whom she co-directed the Carl Rogers Institute for Peace –an organization that applied person-centered principles to real and potential international crisis situations, and for which Dr. Rogers was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987. I know her words and being will inspire you to seek and use client feedback on a more regular basis…

OK, done for now,

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S.: Registration for the Spring 2020 Advanced and Supervision Intensives is open! Both events sold out months in advance this year. Click on the icons below for more information or to register.
ICCE Fit Supervision Intensive 2020 Scott D Miller

Clinical Practice Guidelines: Beneficial Development or Bad Therapy?

December 4, 2017 By scottdm 16 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, the American Psychological Association (APA) released clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of people diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). “Developed over four years using a rigorous process,” according to an article in the APA Monitor, these are the first of many additional recommendations of specific treatment methods for particular psychiatric diagnoses to be published by the organization.

Almost immediately, controversy broke out. On the Psychology Today blog, Clinical Associate Professor Jonathon Shedler, advised practitioners and patients to ignore the new guidelines, labeling them “bad therapy.” Within a week, Professors Dean McKay and Scott Lilienfeld responded, lauding the guidelines a “significant advance for psychotherapy practice,” while repeatedly accusing Shedler of committing logical fallacies and misrepresenting the evidence.

One thing I know for sure, coming in at just over 700 pages, few if any practitioners will ever read the complete guideline and supportive appendices. Beyond length, the way the information is presented–especially the lack of hypertext for cross referencing of the studies cited–seriously compromises any strainghtforward effort to review and verify evidentiary claims.

If, as the old saying goes, “the devil is in the details,” the level of mind-numbing minutae contained in the offical documents ensures he’ll remain well-hidden, tempting all but the most compulsive to accept the headlines on faith.

Consider the question of whether certain treatment approaches are more effective than others? Page 1 of the Executive Summary identifies differential efficacy as a “key question” to be addressed by the Guideline. Ultimately, four specific approaches are strongly recommended, being deemed more effective than…wait for it… “relaxation.”

My first thought is, “OK, curious comparison.” Nevertheless, I read on.

Only by digging deep into the report, tracing the claim to the specific citations, and then using PsychNET, and another subscription service, to access the actual studies, is it possible to discover that in the vast majority of published trials reviewed, the four “strongly recommended” approaches were actually compared to nothing. That’s right, nothing.

In the few studies that did include relaxation, the structure of that particular “treatment” precluded sufferers from talking directly about their traumatic experiences. At this point, my curiosity gave way to chagrin. Is it any wonder the four other approaches proved more helpful? What real-world practitioner would limit their work with someone suffering from PTSD to recording “a relaxation script” and telling their client to “listen to it for an hour each day?”

(By the way, it took me several hours to distill the information noted above from the official documentation–and I’m someone with a background in research, access to several online databases, a certain facility with search engines, and connections with a community of fellow researchers with whom I can consult)

On the subject of what research shows works best in the treatment of PTSD, meta-analyses of studies in which two or more approaches intended to be therapeutic are directly compared, consistently find no difference in outcome between methods–importantly, whether the treatments are designated “trauma-focused” or not. Meanwhile, another highly specialized type of research–known as dismantling studies–fails to provide any evidence for the belief that specialized treatments contain ingredients specifically remedial to the diagnosis! And yes, that includes the ingredient most believe essential to therapeutic success in the treatment of PTSD: exposure (1, 2).

So, if the data I cite above is accurate–and freely available–how could the committee that created the Guideline come to such dramatically different conclusions? In particular, going to great lengths to recommend particular approaches to the exclusion of others?

Be forewarned, you may find my next statement confusing. The summary of studies contained in the Guideline and supportive appendices is absolutely accurate. It is the interpretation of that body of research, however, that is in question.

More than anything else, the difference between the recommendations contained in the Guideline and the evidence I cite above, is attributable to a deep and longstanding rift in the body politic of the APA. How otherwise is one able to reconcile advocating the use of particular approaches with APA’s official policy on psychotherapy recognizing, “different forms . . . typically produce relatively similar outcomes”?

Seeking to place the profession “on a comparable plane” with medicine, some within the organization–in particular, the leaders and membership of Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) have long sought to create a psychological formulary. In part, their argument goes, “Since medicine creates lists of recommended treatments and procedures, why not psychology?”

Here, the answer is simple and straightforward: because psychotherapy does not work like medicine. As Jerome Frank observed long before the weight of evidence supported his view, effective psychological care is comprised of:

An emotionally-charged, confiding relationship with a helping person (e.g., a therapist);
A healing context or setting (e.g., clinic);
A rational, conceptual scheme, or myth that is congruent with the sufferer’s worldview and provides a plausible explanation for their difficulties (e.g., psychotherapy theories); and
Rituals and/or procedures consistent with the explanation (e.g., techniques).

The four attributes not only fit the evidence but explain why virtually all psychological approaches tested over the last 40 years, work–even those labelled pseudoscience (e.g., EMDR) by Lilienfeld, and other advocates of guidelines comprised of “approved therapies.”

That the profession could benefit from good guidelines goes without saying. Healing the division within APA would be a good place to start. Until then, encouraging practitioners to follow the organization’s own definition of evidence-based practice would suffice. To wit, “Evidence based practice is the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient (sic) characteristics, culture, and preferences.” Note the absence of any mention of specific treatment approaches. Instead, consistent with Frank’s observations, and the preponderance of research findings, emphasis is placed on fitting care to the person.

How to do this? The official statement continues, encouraging the “monitoring of patient (sic) progress . . . that may suggest the need to adjust the treatment.” Over the last decade, multiple systems have been developed for tracking engagement and progress in real time. Our own system, known as Feedback Informed Treatment (FIT), is being applied by thousands of therapists around the world, with literally millions of clients. It is listed on the National Registry of Evidence based Programs and Practices. More, when engagement and progress are tracked together with clients in real time, data to date document improvements in retention and outcome of mental health services regardless of the treatment method being used.

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.
Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence