Search Results for: trauma

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

–

What does losing your keys have in common with the treatment of trauma?

April 24, 2019 By scottdm 9 Comments

Last week, I was preparing to leave the house and could not locate my keys. Trust me when I say, it’s embarrassing to admit this is not an infrequent occurrence.

Logic and reason are always my first problem solving choices. That’s why I paused after looking in the kitchen drawer where I am supposed to keep them, along with my wallet and glasses, and found it empty. When did I last have them? Not finding them there, the “search” began.

Upstairs to the bedroom to check my pants pockets. No. Downstairs to the front closet to look in my coat. No. Back upstairs to the hamper in the laundry room. No. Once more, down the stairs to the kitchen hutch. I sometimes leave them there. This time, however, no. I then headed back up the stairs to the master bathroom — my pace now a bit frantic — and rummaged through my clothing. No. They’ve gotta be on my office desk. Down two flights of stairs to the basement. Not there either.

In a fit of pique, I stormed over to the landing, and yelled at the top of my voice, “DID SOMEONE TAKE MY KEYS?” the accusation barely concealed. Although my head knew this was nuts, my heart was certain it was true. They’ve hidden them!

“No,” my family members kindly reply, then ask, “Have you lost them again?”

“Arrgh,” I mutter under my breath. And that’s when I do something that, in hindsight, make no sense. I wonder if you do the same? Namely, I start the entire search over from the beginning — pants, coat, hamper, closet, hutch, office — often completing the exact same cycle several times. Pants, coat, hamper, closet, hutch, office. Pants, coat, hamper, closet, hutch, office. Pants, coat, hamper, closet, hutch, office.

I can’t explain the compulsion, other than, by this point, I’ve generally lost my mind. More, I can’t think of anything else do. My problem: I have somewhere to go! The solution: Keep looking (and it goes without saying, of course, in the same places).

(I did eventually locate my keys. More on that in a moment)

Yesterday, I was reminded of my experience while reading a newly released study on the treatment of trauma. Bear with me as I explain. Over a decade ago, I blogged about the U.S. Veteran’s Administration spending $25,000,000 aimed at “discover[ing] the best treatments for PTSD” despite a virtual mountain of evidence showing no difference in outcome between various therapy approaches.

Since that original post, the evidence documenting equivalence between competing methods has only increased (1, 2). The data are absolutely clear. 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. More, other highly specialized studies – known as dismantling research – fail 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; namely, exposure (1, 2).

The new study confirms and extends such findings. Briefly, using data drawn from 39 V.A. treatment centers, researchers examined the relationship between outcome and the degree of adoption of two so-called “evidence-based,” trauma-informed psychotherapy approaches — prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy. If method mattered, of course, then a greater degree of adoption would be associated with better results. It was not. As the authors of the study conclude, “programs that used prolonged exposure and cognitive processing therapy with most or all patients did not see greater reductions in PTSD or depression symptoms or alcohol use, compared with programs that did not use these evidence-based psychotherapies.”

So what happens now? If history, and my own behavior whenever I lose my keys, is any indication, we’ll start the process of looking all over again. Instead of accepting the key is not where we’ve been looking, the field will continue it’s search. After all, we have somewhere to go — and right back to the search for the next method, model, or treatment approach, we go.

It’s worse than that, actually, as looking over and again in the same place, keeps us from looking elsewhere. That’s how I generally find my keys. As simple and perhaps dumb as it sounds, I find them someplace I had not looked.

And where is the field not looking? As Norcross and Wampold point out in an article published this week, “relationships and responsiveness” are the key ingredients in successful psychological care for people who are suffering as a result of traumatic experiences, going on to say that the emphasis on model or method is actually harmful, as it “squanders a vital opportunity to identify what actually heals.”

Improving our ability to connect with and respond effectively to the diverse people we meet in therapy is the focus on Deliberate Practice Intensive, held this August in Chicago, Illinois. Unlike training in protocol-driven treatments, studies to date show learning the skills taught at the workshop result in steady improvements in clinicians’ facilitative interpersonal skills and outcomes commensurate with the rate of improvement seen in elite athletes. For more information or to register, click here.

Until next time,

Scott

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

What heals trauma?

October 3, 2018 By scottdm 33 Comments

“Exposure!” a choir of professional voices sings, “its the only proven way.”

“No, no,” others insist, “You can tap yourself to emotional freedom.”

“Poppycock!” another group jumps in, “Horizontal saccadic eye movements are the ticket!”

“Beware the dominant discourse,” a few, particularly literate warn, “focusing on what was done to the person can retraumatize, help them reauthor their experiences instead.”

Meanwhile, a smaller and less vocal group shakes their heads in disbelief, saying, “There are no shortcuts. Healing comes only from identifying and ‘working through’ painful unconscious feelings.”

Turning to the research to answer the question–what heals trauma?”–offers little clarity. Advocates of most approaches can offer evidence that their preferred approach works–at least one study, and often more, many more–a fact all should find puzzling. Simply put, how could all approaches work, given they offer competing and often contradictory explanations and techniques? And yet, no consistent superiority of one particular approach over others is exactly what the latest dismantling and meta-analytic studies show (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

When attempting to account for why all approaches work equally well, the most common argument made is that different models work for different people. Said another way, what may be effective in the aggregate may not work for the individual. “Choice is key,” advocates of this position assert.

More recently, and perhaps in response to the continuing failure to find any meaningful difference in outcome between treatment methods, it has become popular to talk of a set of “mechanistically transdiagnostic…therapeutic strategies…[targeting] the role of a given mechanism in the development and maintenance of a range of psychopathology.” Ironically, the call for a “universal treatment protocol,” is the “go to” position of those who once advocated for the creation of officially sanctioned lists of specific treatments for specific disorders.

So, which explanation holds water? Here again, the empirical evidence offers little clarity. What is important, however, is that these two, diametrically opposed perspectives share a common assumption: healing results from the appropriate application of the right treatment methods.

But what if that’s not true? What if therapeutic techniques–whether specific to a given model or shared by all–have no inherent power to heal? Where would that leave us as a profession? Does it mean that our methods are the therapeutic equivalent of Dumbo’s magic feather?

“A great deal changes, in terms of our ability to help and heal,” psychologist Stephen Bacon suggests, “if we embrace what the research indicates. Psychotherapy, as a science, is not like engineering. It operates in a different reality.”

Recently, I had a chance to interview Stephen about his work, and new, thought-provoking, and imminently practical book, Practicing Psychotherapy in a Constructed Reality: Ritual, Charisma, and Enhanced Client Outcomes.

As you’ll see, he’s a very interesting person–six years in an ashram, a neighbor and student of Krishnamurti, a degree in religious studies, and more. For me, the “enhanced client outcomes” referenced in the title immediately got my attention. Wait until you have 30, uninterrupted minutes available, as the interview is one of my longer, and you will want to watch every minute.

Until next time,

Scott

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

What Works in the Treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? The Definitive Study

September 15, 2010 By scottdm 1 Comment

What works in the treatment of people with post-traumatic stress? The influential Cochrane Collaboration–an “independent network of people” whose self-professed mission is to help “healthcare providers, policy makers, patients, their advocates and carers, make well-informed decisions, concludes that, “non trauma-focused psychological treatments [do] not reduce PTSD symptoms as significantly…as individual trauma focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TFCBT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, stress mamangement and group TFCBT.” The same conclusion was reached by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (or NICE) in the United Kingdom which has developed and disseminated practice guidelines that unequivocally state that , “all people with PTSD should be offered a course of trauma focused psychological treatment (TFCBT) or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR).” And they mean all: adults and kids, young and old. Little room for left for interpretation here. No thinking is required. Like the old Nike ad, you should: “Just do it.”

Wait a minute though…what do the data say? Apparently, the NICE and Cochrane recommendations are not based on, well…the evidence–at least, that is, the latest meta-analytic research! Meta-analysis, you will recall, is a procedure for aggregating results from similar studies in order to test a hypothesis, such as, “are certain approaches for the treatment of post traumatic stress more effective than others?” A year ago, I blogged about the publication of a meta-analysis by Benish, Imel, & Wampold which clearly showed that there was no difference in outcome between treatments for PTSD and that the designation of some therapies as “trauma-focused” was devoid of empirical support, a fiction.

So, how to account for the differences? In a word, allegiance. Although written by scientists, so-called “scholarly” reviews of the literature and “consensus panel” opinions inevitably reflect the values, beliefs, and theoretical predilections of the authors. NICE guidelines, for example, read like a well planned advertising campaign for single psychotherapeutic modality: CBT. Indeed, the organization is quite explicit in it’s objective: “provide support for the local implementation of…appropriate levels of cognitive beheavioral therapy.” Astonishingly, no other approach is accorded the same level of support or endorsement despite robust evidence of the equivalence of outcomes among treatment approaches. Meanwhile, the review of the PTSD literature and treatment recommendations published by the Cochrane Collaboration has not been updated since 2007–a full two years following the publication of the Benish et al. (2008) meta-analysis–and that was penned by a prominent advocate of…CBT…Trauma-focused CBT.

As I blogged about back in January, researchers and prominent CBT proponents, published a critique of the Benish et al. (2008) meta-analysis in the March 2010 issue of Clinical Psychology Review (Vol. 30, No. 2, pages 269-76). Curiously, the authors chose not to replicate the Benish et al. study, but rather claim that bias, arbitrariness, lack of transparency, and poor judgement accounted for the findings. As I promised at the time, I’m making the response we wrote–which appeared in the most recent issue of Clinical Psychology Review—available here.

Of course, the most important finding of the Benish et al. (2008) and our later response (Wampold et al. 2010) is that mental health treatments work for people with post traumatic stress. Such a conclusion is unequivocal. At the same time, as we state in our response to the critique of Benish et al. (2008), “there is little evidence to support the conclusion…that one particular treatment for PTSD is superior to others or that some well defined ingredient is crucial to successful treatments of PTSD.” Saying otherwise, belies the evidence and diverts attention and scarce resources away from efforts likely to improve the quality and outcome of behavioral health services.

View more documents from Scott Miller.

Forgiveness

July 1, 2020 By scottdm 4 Comments

One warm, summer June day, Marietta Jaeger, her husband Bill, and their five children packed into their borrowed R.V. for a cross-country road trip touring the American west. “This was going to be the adventure of a lifetime, a grand family vacation, the one we were going to talk about for the rest of our lives,” Marietta observes some four decades later, “and it certainly has been.”

On the third night of their stay, camped at the headwaters of the Missouri river, the family’s youngest child — 7-year old Susie Jaeger — was kidnapped. A slit made with surgical precision in the canvas of the tent in which she slept with her brothers and sisters was the only clue to what had happened.

Hours, days, and weeks passed while local, state, and federal authorities searched. Although increasingly desperate, Marietta maintained her focus and composure, attending to her other children while constantly juggling interactions with law enforcement and the media. Then, “A day came,” she recalls, “where I began to get angry.” By this time, the family had been camped out at the river’s edge for over a month. “By the time I got into bed,” she continues, “I was just ravaged with hatred and a desire for revenge.” Her eyes narrowing in anger, she confesses, “I wanted this guy to swing,” adding, “I could have killed him for what he had done with my bare hands and a smile on my face.”

No one I know would fault Marietta for her feelings. Some experts might even suggest her reaction was a necessary, even helpful part of recovering from such a traumatic event. In the end, however, it was not the path she chose to stay on. Quite the contrary. Rather, before daylight broke the next day, and years before she would learn what actually happened to her daughter, Marietta made the decision to forgive the person who had taken Susie.

Believe me when I say, her decision was no mere contrivance or symbolic gesture. Her behavior followed suit — acts of grace, understanding, and empathy most would find exceptionally difficult to emulate — for example, expressing genuine care and concern for the kidnapper when he called to taunt the family one year later on the date and exact hour he’d absconded with Susie.

I won’t tell you here what happened. You can watch for yourself in the link to the 20/20 episode below. What I will say is that Marietta Jaeger’s ability to forgive proved to be the key to solving the kidnapping of her daughter.

Research documents the healing effects of forgiveness on individuals and groups (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Other data indicate people, particularly those seeking psychotherapy, want to forgive. But how? What exactly are the steps?

I had the opportunity to speak with Marietta Jaeger last week. During the time we spent together, she told me how she did it. I experienced a wide range of emotions: anger, discouragement, frustration, bafflement, sadness, and peace. Once you’ve had a chance to listen to the interview and watch the 20/20 episode, let me know your thoughts.

Until next time,

Scott

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

“My Mother Made Me Do It”: An Interview with Don Meichenbaum on the Origins of CBT (Plus: Tips for Surviving COVID-19)

May 26, 2020 By scottdm 6 Comments

Imagine having the distinction of being voted one of the top 10 most influential psychotherapists of the 20th Century.

Psychologist Don Meichenbaum is that person. In his spare time, together with Arron Beck and Marvin Goldfried, he created the most popular and researched method of psychotherapy in use today: cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT).

I got to know Don years ago as we shared a car ride, traveling to and from a training venue while teaching separate, week-long workshops in New England. We laughed. We talked. We debated. Fiercely.

We’ve been friends and colleagues ever since, recreating our car ride discussions in front of large audiences of therapists at each Evolution of Psychotherapy conference since 2005.

As Don approaches his 80th birthday, we look back on the development of CBT — what he thinks he got right and how his thinking has evolved over time. Most trace the roots of CBT to various theorists in the field — Freud, Wolpe, and others. Don is clear: his mother made him do it. That’s right. According to him, CBT got its start with Mrs. Meichenbaum. I know you’ll be amused, but I also believe you’ll be surprised by why and how she contributed.

That said, my interview with Don isn’t merely a retrospective. Still actively involved in the field, he shares important, evidence-based tips about trauma and resilience, applying the latest findings to the psychological and economic impacts of the coronavirus. You’ll find the interview below.

All done for now,

Scott

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

Do you ever have “Anticipointment?”

January 2, 2020 By scottdm 8 Comments

As a mental health professional, how are you approaching the New Year? Are you filled with hope for our field? Suffering a twinge (or more) of despair? Maybe you’re in reflective mood, longing for the ‘good ole days’? Or is the difference between December 31st and January 1st just like any other twenty four hour period?

While catching up on reading over the Holidays, I came across a word that captured my experience. I’d never seen it before. Anticipointment. Online sources define it as, “The state of mind resulting from anticipating and then being disappointed when expectations are not met.” Truth is, I recognize now I’ve often experienced this, but mistaken it for nostalgia. I t’s not.

So what about you? On one hand, we do have good reason to be hopeful. After all, decades of evidence provide overwhelming proof of the effectiveness of psychotherapy. On the other hand, the same research shows our outcomes have not improved in more than 40 years. Returning to the positive side, researchers have now identified two specific practices — routine outcome monitoring and deliberate practice — that enable clinicians to accomplish something never before recorded in history the history of the field; namely, steadily improve their effectiveness from year to year. On the negative side, the field –researchers, clinicians, payers, and policy makers alike — continues to be strongly attracted to treatment models, I’d say fatally so. Crossing the term, “cognitive behavioral therapy” (CBT) with “randomized controlled trial” (RCT) on Google Scholar results in 1,930,000 hits! In case you glossed over the figure, that’s one million, nine hundred thirty thousand — and that’s just one method out of hundreds. By contrast, a similar search of “tetanus vaccine,” produces slightly more than 18,000 results. I ask, does our field really need to spend precious resources on another study of CBT? It’s discouraging. More broadly, given the clear and overwhelming evidence of equivalence between treatment methods for any DSM diagnosis that’s been tested — and yes, that includes so-called trauma-specific approaches — do we need any more RCT’s pitting one protocol against another? Wouldn’t time be better spent studying how practitioners can improve their ability to attune and respond to their clients? After all, these two transtheoretical skills, researchers Stiles and Horvath, point out, are why “certain therapists are more effective than others” (p. 71)

For me, I approach the New Year with a strong sense of anticipointment. I want to be hopeful, believe there are good empirical reasons to do so. At the same time, I fear little will change. Turns out, some of our field’s beliefs and practices refuse to die.

What can we do to escape these “walking dead?”

A quick Google search of “Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse” turns up in three clear themes. First, make sure you are not a zombie. “The main epidemiological risk of zombies,” says Wikipedia, “is that their population just keeps increasing [as] generations of humans merely ‘surviving’ … feed” them. In the case of psychotherapy, I’ve come to believe practitioners often know certain popular ideas and practices are dead, but go along with them anyway. We must say, “no” or risk infecting the next generation.

The second suggestion makes the first possible: don’t go it alone. In short, you have a better chance of surviving in a group that shares your objectives. If your professional goals as a therapist include improving your results, the near 10,000 members of the International Center for Clinical Excellence might be your people. It’s free.

Third, and finally, focus on the basics. In the case of real zombies, that means securing water, shelter, and food over other, possibly more stimulating interests. Similarly, for therapists, chasing the “new and promising” must give way to personal work; in particular, deepening core skills associated with effective clinical practice. If becoming a more effective version of you is of interest, check out an article on the subject published this week. My colleague Brooke Mathewes and I provide concrete guidance for finding your performance edge and then developing, executing, and evaluating a highly individualized plan for improvement. Normally behind a “paywall,” the article is currently available for free thanks to the generosity of the journal editors.

As always, I’m interested in your thoughts and reflections. Please post them below!

Until next time,

Scott

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

Feedbak Informed Treatment: Game Changer or Another Therapeutic Fad?

December 4, 2019 By scottdm 1 Comment

Remember these?

Did you ever own or try one?

Remember Beanie Babies? According to one news story, interest was such, “People neglected other areas of their lives to spend all day trading, and some even invested their children’s college funds in toys that they believed would bring an astronomical return on investment.”

And how about advertising executive Gary Dahl’s product? You remember him, right? In the 1970’s, he became an overnight millionaire selling rocks marketed as pets. Rocks! Waterbeds, Crocs, cause-branded plastic wristbands, oxygen bars, Pogs, Silly Bandz, and the Macarena — the list is as endless as our attention span is short.

If you’ve been in practice for a while, you know the field of mental health is not immune to fad and fashion. Like past diet crazes, the drugs, diagnoses, and treatment methods that capture professional interest and then quickly disappear can be hard to remember. Thus, in the 1980’s it was Xanax, multiple personality disorder, and satanic cult abuse. The 1990’s brought us the “decade of the brain,” borderline personality disorder, and a flood of Prozac and cognitive-behavior therapy knockoffs. More recently, mindfulness, energy meridians, and trauma have become the objets de grand intérêt.

One more trend is Feedback-Informed Treatment (FIT). Known also as Routine Outcome Monitoring, Patient Focused Research, and Measurement-based care, it involves using scales to solicit feedback from clients regarding their experience in treatment and using the resulting information in real time to improve quality and outcome. The weight of the scientific evidence is such that professional and regulatory bodies in the U.S. and abroad have already deemed ROM a “standard” of care in the delivery of psychological services and clinical supervision (American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice, 2006; Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, 2019; Joint Commission, 2018; Tasca et al., 2019).

But is it just another fad?

Data from two recent surveys suggest FIT is moving beyond the “innovation” to the “mass adoption” phase among mental health providers and treatment agencies. The study conducted by Myoutcomes® targeted members of Facebook-related psychotherapy interest groups and other sources, finding fairly dramatic growth in: (1) awareness of the empirical support for using measures to assess progress and the quality of the therapeutic relationship; and (2) experience with standardized measurement tools in psychotherapy.

Whether such results indicate FIT will stick around long enough to be the “game changer” remains to be seen. What is known for sure is that, while important, awareness of, experience with, and research support for the process are insufficient to sustain the interest. Research shows, for instance, successful implementation of FIT takes significant time, planning, and support, without which between 70 and 95% of efforts fail. Why? Because working feedback-informed is about changing culture, not using measurement scales in treatment. Success requires that all members of management — from administration to clinical supervisors — understand and are actively involved in implementation. Indeed, when practitioners rather than a team led by a manager are held accountable, the likelihood of FIT being a game changer plummets (80% versus 14 %).

Bottom line? PLEASE don’t download the ORS and SRS and begin experimenting — testing it out to see “if it works.” As I blogged about last week, the likelihood of failure is simply too high. Instead, bring your team to our upcoming Spring intensives in Chicago. You’ll not only “rub shoulders” with colleagues from around the world and our international faculty, but also leave with a thorough grounding in FIT, as well as skills for transforming the culture in which you work.

Until next time,

Scott

Director, International Center for Clinical Excellence

Is THAT true? Judging Evidence by How Often its Repeated

October 22, 2019 By scottdm 11 Comments

I’m sure you’ve heard it repeated many times:

The term, “evidence-based practice” refers to specific treatment approaches which have been tested in research and found to be effective;

CBT is the most effective form of psychotherapy for anxiety and depression;

Neuroscience has added valuable insights to the practice of psychotherapy in addition to establishing the neurological basis for many mental illnesses;

Training in trauma-informed treatments (EMDR, Exposure, CRT) improves effectiveness;

Adding mindfulness-based interventions to psychotherapy improves the outcome of psychotherapy;

Clinical supervision and personal therapy enhance clinicians’ ability to engage and help.

Only one problem: none of the foregoing statements are true. Taking each in turn:

As I related in detail in a blogpost some six years ago, evidence-based practice has nothing to do with specific treatment approaches. The phrase is better thought of as a verb, not a noun. According to the American Psychological Association and Institute of Medicine, there are three components: (1) the best evidence; in combination with (2) individual clinical expertise; and consistent with (3) patient values and expectations. Any presenter who says otherwise is selling something.
CBT is certainly the most tested treatment approach — the one employed most often in randomized controlled trials (aka, RCT’s). That said, studies which compare the approach with other methods find all therapeutic methods work equally well across a wide range of diagnoses and presenting complaints.
When it comes to neuroscience, a picture is apparently worth more than 1,000’s of studies. On the lecture circuit, mental illness is routinely linked to the volume, structure, and function of the hippocampus and amygdala. And yet, a recent review compared such claims to 19th-century phrenology. More to the point, no studies show that so-called, “neurologically-informed” treatment approaches improve outcome over and above traditional psychotherapy (Thanks to editor Paul Fidalgo for making this normally paywalled article available).
When I surveyed clinicians recently about the most popular subjects at continuing education workshops, trauma came in first place. Despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is no evidence that learning a “trauma-informed” improves a clinician’s effectiveness. More, consistent with the second bullet point about CBT, such approaches have not shown to produce better results than any other therapeutic method.
Next to trauma, the hottest topic on the lecture circuit is mindfulness. What do the data say? The latest meta-analysis found such interventions offer no advantage over other approaches.
The evidence clearly shows clinicians value supervision. In large, longitudinal studies, it is consistently listed in the top three, most influential experiences for learning psychotherapy. And yet, research fails to provide any evidence that supervision contributes to improved outcomes.

Are you surprised? If so, you are not alone.

The evidence notwithstanding, the important question is why these beliefs persist?

According to the research, a part of the answer is, repetition. Hear something often enough and eventually you adjust your “truth bar” — what you accept as “accepted” or established, settled fact. Of course, advertisers, propagandists and politicians have known this for generations — paying big bucks to have their message repeated over and over.

For a long while, researchers believed the “illusory truth effect,” as it has been termed, was limited to ambiguous statements; that is, items not easily checked or open to more than one interpretation. A recent study, however, shows repetition increases acceptance/belief of false statements even when they are unambiguous and simple- to-verify. Frightening to say the least.

A perfect example is the first item on the list above: evidence-based practice refers to specific treatment approaches which have been tested in research and found to be effective. Type the term into Google, and one of the FIRST hits you’ll get makes clear the statement is false. It, and other links, defines the term as “a way of approaching decision making about clinical issues.”

Said another way, evidence-based practice is a mindset — a way of approaching our work that has nothing to do with adopting particular treatment protocols.

Still, belief persists.

What can a reasonable person do to avoid falling prey to such falsehoods?

It’s difficult, to be sure. More, as busy as we are, and as much information as we are subjected to on a daily basis, the usual suggestions (e.g., read carefully, verify all facts independently, seek out counter evidence) will leave all but those with massive amounts of free time on their hands feeling overwhelmed.

And therein lies the clue — at least in part — for dealing with the “illusory truth effect.” Bottom line: if you try to assess each bit of information you encounter on a one-by-one basis, your chances of successfully sorting fact from fiction are low. Indeed, it will be like trying to quench your thirst by drinking from a fire hydrant.

To increase your chances of success, you must step back from the flood, asking instead, “what must I unquestioningly believe (or take for granted) in order to accept a particular assertion as true?” Then, once identified, ask yourself whether those assumptions are true?

Try it. Go back to the statements at the beginning of this post with this larger question in mind.

(Hint: they all share a common philosophical and theoretical basis that, once identified, makes verification of the specific statements much easier)

If you guessed the “medical model” (or something close), you are on the right track. All assume that helping relieve mental and emotional suffering is the same as fixing a broken arm or treating a bacterial infection — that is, to be successful a treatment containing the ingredients specifically remedial to the problem must be applied.

While mountains of research published over the last five decades document the effectiveness of the “talk therapies,” the same evidence conclusively shows “psychotherapy” does not work in the same way as medical treatments. Unlike medicine, no specific technique in any particular therapeutic approach has ever proven essential for success. None. Any claim based on a similar assumptive base should, therefore, be considered suspect.

Voila!

I’ve been applying the same strategy in the work my team and I have done on using measures and feedback — first, to show that therapists needed to do more than ask for feedback if they wanted to improve their effectiveness; and second, to challenge traditional notions about why, when, and with whom, the process does and doesn’t work. In these, and other instances, the result has been greater understanding and better outcomes.

So there you have it. Until next time,

Scott

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

P.S: Registration for the Spring Feedback Informed Treatment intensives is now open. In prior years, these two events have sold out several months in advance. For more information or to register, click here or on the images below.

Good Intentions or The Proverbial “Road to Hell?”: Trying to Understand the APA guidelines for Men and Boys

March 8, 2019 By scottdm 9 Comments

Several weeks ago, the American Psychological Association (APA) released its latest in a series of practice guidelines for psychologists – this time for “Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.” Prior years had seen guidelines focused on ethnicity, older adults, girls and women, LGBT, and “transgender and gender-non-conforming” persons.

Curiously, despite claiming to be based on 40 years of research, and the product of 12 years of intensive study, the latest release attracted little attention. More, the responses that have appeared in print and other media have largely been negative (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

What happened?

At first blush, the development and dissemination practice guidelines for psychologists would seem a failsafe proposition. What possibly could go wrong with providing evidence-based information for improving clinical work? And yet, time and again, guidelines released by APA end up not just attracting criticism, but deep concern. Already, for example, a Title IX complaint has been filed against the new guidelines at Harvard.

Consider others released in late 2017 for the treatment of trauma. Coming in at just over 700 pages ensured few, if any, actual working professionals would read the complete document and supportive appendices. Beyond length, the way the information was presented–especially the lack of hypertext for cross referencing of the studies cited–seriously compromised any straightforward effort to review and verify evidentiary claims. Nevertheless, digging into the details revealed a serious problem: a discontinuity between the evidence reviewed and the conclusions reached. For example, despite “strongly recommending” certain approaches over others, none that topped the list had actually been shown by research to be more effective than any other.

Guidelines are far from benign. They are meant to shape practice, establishing a “standard of care” — one that will be used, as the name implies to guide training and treatment. As such, the stakes are high, potentially life altering for both practitioners and those they serve.

And so, on reading the latest release from the APA, we wonder about the consequences for men and boys. Even a superficial reading leaves little to recommend “being male.” Gone are any references to the historical or current contributions of men — to their families, communities, marginalized peoples, culture, or civilization. In their place, are a host of sweeping generalizations often wrapped in copious amounts of political, progressive jargon on a wide variety of subjects, many of which are the focus of research and debate by serious scientists (e.g., the connection between media violence and male aggression, socialization as a primary cause of gender and behavior, the existence of a singular versus multiple masculine ideal, etc.).

Cutting to the chase, when viewed in this way, is it any wonder really, that many men – as the document accurately points out – “do not seek help from mental health professionals when they need it?” (p. 1).

And lest there be any doubt, men as a group, are in need help.

You’ve likely read the statistics, seen examples in your practice, perhaps in the life of your family or friends. It starts young, with boys accounting for 90% of discipline problems in schools, and continues to the end of life, with women living 5 to 10 years longer on average. The “in between” years are not any better, with men significantly more likely to be incarcerated, addicted to drugs, drop and fail out of school, and end their lives by suicide.

To be clear, the document is not overarchingly negative. At the same time, if our goal, as a profession, is to reduce stigma — which previous, and even the present, guidelines do for other groups and “non-traditional” males — then the latest release risks perpetuating stereotypes and prejudices of “traditional” men and the people in their orbit.

Sticking to the science of helping, instead of conforming to popular standards of public discourse, would have lead to a very different document – one containing a more nuanced and appreciative understanding of the boys and men who are reluctant to seek our care. In the fractious times in which we find ourselves, perhaps it’s time for guidelines on how to live and work together, as individuals and as a species.

As always, interested in your thoughts,

Scott & David

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D. & David Prescott, LICSW
International Center for Clinical Excellence

P.S.: Registration for our Summer Intensives on Implementing Feedback Informed Treatment and Deliberate Practice is now open — two clinical practices research shows improves retention and outcome in behavioral health care. For more information, click here.

Beating the Dodo Verdict: Can Psychotherapy Ever Achieve Better Results?

December 18, 2018 By scottdm 3 Comments

Nearly two decades have passed since I met Saul Rosenzweig at his home in St. Louis, Missouri. He was well into his nineties and still working every day. Truth is, I was surprised to learn he was still alive!

In 1936, he’d penned an article –three and a half pages in total– that became one of the most often cited in psychotherapy research. He was only 29 years of age at the time.

Then, as now, Rosenzweig’s central premise is controversial: all psychotherapy approaches, regardless of their specific components, produce equivalent outcomes.

Although he didn’t coin the phrase, his observation has since been referred to as, “The Dodo Verdict.” That’s because he began the article quoting a line uttered by the Dodo from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, “Everyone has won, and all must have prizes.”

Over the last eight decades, many have claimed to “beat the dodo verdict” — to have developed an approach more effective than others. You know them by acronym: CBT, EMDR, ACT, CRT, MI, TFT, SFBT, CDOI, and so on. Initial research is always promising. Nevertheless, as I’ve detailed in many blogs over the years, later studies invariably find the “new and improved” is no more effective than the “tried and true” — whatever the accepted standard might be at that moment (1, 2, 3, 4).

The field’s focus on methods is understandable. The assumption is psychotherapy works like medicine. To be effective, an approach must contain ingredients specifically remedial to the disorder being treated. No one questions whether antibiotics are better than aspirin for strep throat. Why? Because the former contains an ingredient that kills the bacteria responsible for the infection. In a similar way, CBT is widely believed to work because its methods target the root cause of depression, dysfunctional thoughts.

So critical are the techniques of the various psychotherapy approaches believed to be, developers create protocols and manuals for insuring they are delivered correctly. Professional, regulatory, and funding bodies (e.g., American Psychological Association, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], National Institute of Mental Health) have embraced and, in some instances, mandated their use.

But what do the data say?

In 2005, my colleagues and I reviewed the available evidence and concluded, “Although training in manualized psychotherapies does enhance therapist learning of and technical competence in a given approach, there is no relationship between such manuals and outcome.”

And now, a new, updated study. Briefly, researchers Truijens, Zühlke‐van Hulzen, and Vanheule, conducted a systematic review of the literature — six studies directly comparing manualized and nonmanualized psychotherapy, and nine meta-analyses. Their conclusion? “Manualized treatment is not empirically supported … [and] should not be promoted as being superior to nonmanualized psychotherapy.” It’s Dodo come back life.

What can a mental health professional do to improve their effectiveness?

Here again, the data point the way to finally “beating the Dodo.” It involves a change of focus. Instead of learning the latest treatment approach, work on becoming a more effective version of you. The process is known as deliberate practice. It begins by creating a detailed map of your clinical performance; specifically, measuring your results, and then using the information to identify opportunities for professional growth.Research to date documents gradual growth in effectiveness consistent with performance improvements obtained by elite athletes.

Want to learn more? Click here for a free article–actually, the chapter on the subject from our latest book, The Cycle of Excellence. Still interested? Watch the recent interview I did on the subject with YouTube blogger, Chris Dorsano.

That’s it for now. Best for the Holidays,

Scott

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

“What works” with eating disorders (and how long will it take the field to swallow these results)?

October 20, 2018 By scottdm 8 Comments

What works in the treatment of people with eating disorders? Search around a bit on the internet, or consult official treatment guidelines, and you’ll find cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and interpersonal therapy (IPT) listed as the “best-supported” or “preferred” psychological approaches for bulimia, anorexia, and binge eating.

Such recommendations strongly imply such approaches contain ingredients specifically remedial to eating disorders which, when applied, result in superior outcomes. Otherwise, why create the list in the first place?

But what does the evidence actually indicate? While research in mental health rarely results in definitive findings, in the case of eating disorders, the story is different. When it comes to psychotherapy, all methods work equally well. At least, that is the conclusion of the most recent, sophisticated meta-analysis on the subject. However, if history serves as a guide, many will find the latest results hard to swallow.

Back in 2014, an article penned by proponents of the “specific treatments for specific disorders” — aka the “empirically supported” treatments movement — appeared in The Guardian, claiming science had show that some approaches were “better for certain conditions than others,” in particular eating disorders. Citing the tremendous cost to sufferers and the healthcare system, they urged the field to “redouble … efforts to identify … and ensure that the most effective therapies are available to all who need them.”

As I blogged about at the time, I received a ton of email when that article first appeared. “Have you seen the Guardian?” they asked. “What do you make of it?” others inquired. A few messages were downright snarky, even gloating, “Scott, research has finally proven certain approaches are more effective than others. I knew it all along!”

I responded noting that the claims in the article were based on a single study. One. And yes, that one study comparing CBT to psychoanalysis found CBT resulted in superior effects in the treatment of bulimia. Crucially, I pointed out, the authors failed to mention the existence of another, exhaustive investigation available at the time in Clinical Psychology Review—one that used the statistically rigorous method of meta-analysis to review 53 studies of psychological treatments for eating disorders, and found no differences in effect between competing therapeutic approaches.

Four-and-a-half years later, the question of “what works best” in the treatment of eating disorders is being addressed in a brand new study in the top tier journal, Psychotherapy Research. (As of right now, you can read it for yourself for free by clicking here. Be prepared, however, as this is not an opinion piece written in a newspaper, but rather an academically rigorous analysis of the evidence).

What did the authors find? Confirming the results of the prior meta-analysis: (1) any treatment works better than none; (2) real treatments are more effective than sham approaches; (3) and no method works better than any other.

Similar results, have been found across a wide range concerns that bring people into treatment, including trauma, sexual abuse, alcohol abuse and dependence, depression and anxiety.

Given the evidence, the question is not whether such results can be trusted. They can. Indeed, they represent the “state-of-the-art” — the best research has to offer. The real problem, then as now, is that such findings do not address the question therapists most want answered, “What can I do to better help my clients?”

To answer this question, we have to recognize a simple fact: therapists live in a fundamentally different world than researchers. We do not deal with groups of people sharing a common diagnosis who are randomized into different treatments. Neither are we are interested in differences in the means response of aggregate group comparisons. We deal with individuals. Confronted daily by their suffering, we want to know how to help the person in our office right now. The problem comes whenever these two worlds are conflated, as advocates of particular treatment approaches are prone to do. It’s then our pragmatic focus make us exceptionally vulnerable to anyone claiming to have discovered “a better way.”

So, what can therapists do to improve their effectiveness?

Simply put: find out if what you are doing is helping your client. Do this by seeking feedback on a formal, session-by-session basis about their progress and experience of the therapeutic relationship–a process known as “Feedback-Informed Treatment” or FIT (you can access two, free, brief and simple-to-use scales by clicking here). A variety of support materials, and 10,000+ clinicians and administrators are available at no cost via the International Center for Clinical Excellence website. Importantly, evidence shows clients of therapists who have integrated FIT into their work are 2.5 times more likely to experience improvement over the course of care.

That’s it for now.

Until next time,

Scott

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

Implementation: The KEY to Improving the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy

May 7, 2018 By scottdm 7 Comments

[Read more…]

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

“What about the Liars and Deniers?” Working Effectively with Mandated and Incarcerated Clients and People who Sexually Abuse

August 24, 2017 By scottdm 7 Comments

It was just a little over a month ago. I was doing a workshop somewhere in the States. My topic? Using formal client feedback to guide and improve the quality and outcome of psychotherapy– our SAMHSA-approved, NREPP listed evidence-based practice.

At the first break, I was approached by one of the attendees. “I’m really enjoying your presentation,” they started, then paused. I could hear a “but” coming.

“And this sounds like it will work with a lot of different kinds of clients…but what about the liars and deniers?”

It’s not the first time I’d been asked this question–the gist of which is, “Can one really trust the feedback given by some clients?”

“We talking about your ex here?” I jokingly asked.

“No,” the person said with a laugh, “You know, like people who aren’t there voluntarily, clients who are mandated, or in the criminal justice system, substance abusers, sex offenders, or all of the above.”

“Funny you should ask,” I replied, “I just finished an interview with one of the leading experts on working with people who sexually abuse. I hope to get a blog up in the next few weeks.”

And here it is…

David Prescott is a Fellow and past president of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, the largest professional organization of its kind in the world. He’s produced 14 books and numerous articles and chapters in the areas of assessing and treating sexual violence and trauma. In the interview below, he talks about the use of FIT with people who sexually abuse–a subject we explore in even greater depth and detail in a chapter we penned together in the eight volume series, The Sex Offender.

Listen in and be sure and leave a comment. It can be fairly challenging material, requiring a shift in mindset and approach–from delivering interventions to developing relationships, gaining compliance to securing engagement, and managing risk to engendering possibilities.

Anyway, I’m interested in your thoughts and experiences.

Meanwhile, registration has just opened for the March 2018 ICCE intensive trainings. Join colleagues from around the world coming together to learn step-by-step, evidence-based strategies for improving engagement and outcome with people of all stripes, backgrounds, and clinical presentations.

Until next time,

Scott

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

Time to Rethink Burnout: Lessons from Supershrinks

June 3, 2015 By scottdm 2 Comments

The world seems to be in the midst of a pandemic of burnout, spread across all age groups, genders, professions, and cultures. Research specific to mental health providers finds that between 21 and 67 percent may be experiencing high levels. Other related “conditions” have been identified, including compassion fatigue (CF), vicarious traumatization (VT), and secondary traumatic stress (STS), all aimed at describing the negative impact that working in human services can have on mental and physical health.

An entire industry of authors, coaches, and trainers has sprung up to address the problem, providing books, videos, presentations, retreats, and organizational consultation. There’s only one problem: currently fashionable approaches to burnout don’t work. In fact, they may make it worse!

What can be done? In the latest issue of the Psychotherapy Networker, my long time colleague and co-writer, Dr. Mark Hubble, and I review research on the field’s Top Performing therapists. Once again, they have something to teach us, this time about “healing the heart of the healer.” Click here to access a PDF of the article.

Until next time,

Scott

Scott D. Miller, Ph.D.

test

ICCE Apparel

T-Shirts

The “Excellence T” has the official ICCE logo on the front and an inspiration quote on the back.Lightweight and durable, the t-shirts have been a hit at intensive trainings in chicago for several years.

Diagnosis	DSM-5	DSM4	ICD-10	DSM-3
Major Depressive Disorder	.32	.59	.53	.80
Generalized Anxiety Disorder	.20	.65	.30	.72

Search Results for: trauma

ICCE Apparel

T-Shirts

Feedback Informed Treatment Manuals

Manual 1 – What Works In Treatment

Manual 2 – Feedback-Informed Treatment

Manual 3 – Feedback-Informed Supervision

Manual 4 – Documenting Change

Manual 5 – Feedback-Informed Treatment

Manual 6 – Implementing Feedback

All 6 Feedback

Psychotherapy Books

The Heart & Soul Of Change

The Heroic Client

The Outcome And Session Rating Scales: Administration And Scoring Manual CORPORATE (in English and French)

The Outcome And Session Rating Scales: Administration And Scoring ManualINDIVIDUAL (In English And French)

Escape From Babel

Psychotherapy With “Impossible” Cases

Handbook Of Solution

Working With The Problem Drinker

Effective Techniques For Dealing With Highly Resistant Clients 2nd EditionClifton W. Mitchell, Ph.D.A

Self-Help Book

The Miracle Method

Staying On Top And Keeping The Sand Out Of Your PantsScott

Audio

Outcome Informed Clinical Work

The Therapeutic Alliance

Working With Uncooperative, Resistant, Or Mandated Clients

Videos

Feedback Informed Treatment

What Works In Psychotherapy

Client-Directed, Outcome-Informed Psychotherapy

Healing Trauma Through Conversation

Heart, Soul, And Research On Psychotherapy

How To Interview For A Change