How Does Feedback Informed Treatment Work? I’m Not Surprised

May 6, 2019 By scottdm 2 Comments

Feedback-Informed Treatment (FIT) — using measures to solicit feedback about progress and the quality of the therapeutic relationship — is a transtheoretical, evidence-based approach. The most recent research shows clients whose therapists use FIT on an ongoing basis are 2.5 times more like to experience benefit from treatment.

But how does it work?

Quick. Take a guess.

Under the first shell: FIT works because clinicians use measures to monitor their performance. The second: Feedback helps clinicians select the most effective treatment methods. Third: FIT enhances the therapeutic relationship.

If you guessed the “proverbial pea” was under the third shell, you’re right. Hard to believe given: (1) the emphasis placed on measurement and treatment methods by researchers and advocates of various scales; and (2) concerns expressed by some clinicians that using measures will negatively impact the relationship.

In a “first of its kind” study, psychologist Heidi Brattland found that the strength of the therapeutic relationship improved more over the course of care when clinicians used the Outcome and Session Rating Scales (ORS & SRS) compared to when they did not. Critically, such improvements resulted in better outcomes for clients, ultimately accounting for nearly a quarter of the effect of FIT.

Below, you will find a link to an interview I did with Heidi this week about the study. It’s really worth watching, and it underscores the main point of her findings. Bottom line: FIT is not about measures and methods. True, the tools provide form and structure, but their purpose is to facilitate connection. So, when therapists in the study used the ORS and SRS, their client’s first session alliance scores tended to be lower, indicating the process facilitated the development of a “culture of feedback” early on in care. As the researchers note, “having been invited to reflect on any negative aspects of the alliance with a responsive therapist in the first session … clients had a more considered and realistic view of the early … [that] facilitated the communication about the treatment process from the first session onward” (p. 10).

That said, Brattland and her colleagues did not find clinicians were equally effective in their use of FIT. Indeed, as detailed in the report, therapists, “significantly differed in the influence of … [FIT] on the alliance, in the influence of the alliance on outcomes, and the residual direct effect of [FIT] … posttreatment” (p. 10). On this score, one advantage of using scales to routinely measure our work, is that doing so enables us to identify our personal “growth edge” — what, where, and how we might improve our ability to relate to and help the diverse clients we meet in our daily work.

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.”

Mountains and Molehills, or What the JFK Assasination and the Therapeutic Relationship have in Common?

April 14, 2019 By scottdm 5 Comments

Over the last 10 days or so, I’ve been digesting a recently published article on the therapeutic alliance — reading, highlighting, tracking down references, rereading, and then discussing the reported findings with colleagues and a peer group of fellow researchers. It’s what I do.

The particular study has been on my “to be read” pile for the better part of a year, maybe more. Provocatively titled, “Is the Alliance Really Therapeutic?” it promises to answer the question in light of “recent methodological advances.”

I know this will sound strange — at least at first — but throughout, I kept finding myself thinking of the assasination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. Bear with me as I explain.

I personally remember the shock and grief of this event. Although I was only six years old at the time, I have vivid memories, watching televised segments of the funeral procession down Pennsylvania Avenue under a grey, overcast and rainy sky. “Why?” my family and the Nation asked, and “How?”

You likely know the rest of the story. Within hours, a suspect was arrested. Two days later, he was murdered on live TV by a Dallas nightclub owner. Ever since, events surrounding the assasination have been the subject of heated debate. More than 2,000 books have been published, each offering a different theory of the event — a veritable “Who’s who” of suspects, including but not limited to the Soviet Union, CIA, Mafia, Cuban government, and Vice President of the United States.

Whatever you might believe, it’s hard to fault the majority of Americans — 61% in the most recent polls — who seriously doubt that the slight, unemployed, thrice court-martialed former marine, acted alone. To many, in fact, it’s simply inconceivable. And, that’s the point. As investigative reporter, Gerald Posner, observed in his book Case Closed, “The notion that a misguided sociopath … wreaked such havoc [makes] the crime seem senseless” (p. xviii). By contrast, concluding there was an elaborate plot involving important and powerful people, embues Kennedy’s death with meaning equal to his stature and significance in the mind of the public.

Said another way, maybe, just maybe, in our attempts to reconcile the facts with our feelings, we made a molehill into a mountain … which brings me back to the article about the therapeutic relationship. The empirical evidence is clear: the quality of the alliance between client and clinician is one of the most potent and reliable predictors of successful psychotherapy.

According to the most recent and thorough review of the empirical literature:

Better alliances result in better outcomes when working with individuals, groups, couples and families, children and adolescents, and mandated/involuntary clients;
With regard to specific qualities, better outcomes result the more therapists:
- Like, value, and care for the client (known as the “real” relationship, it contributes more to outcome than relational elements associated with the doing of therapy. Effect Size [E.S.] ~ .80 );
- Communicate their understanding of and compassion for the client (E.S. ~ .58);
- Collaborate with the client regarding the focus (e.g., problem) and goals for treatment (E.S. ~ .49);
- Present as accessible, approachable, and sincere (i.e., congruent and genuine, E.S. ~ .46)
- Demonstrate respect, warmth, and positive regard (E.S. ~ .36);
- Seek and utilize formal feedback regarding the client’s experience of progress and the therapeutic alliance (E.S. ~ .33 – .49);
- Express emotions and generate hope and expectancy of positive results (E.S. = .56 & .36, respectively).

Sounds pretty straightforward and simple to me. In a relatively efficient fashion (worldwide the average number of visits is around 5 visits), we establish relationships with people that result in significant improvements in their well being. With regard to the latter, as reviewed many times on my blog, the average recipient of psychotherapy is better off than 80% of those with similar problems that do not.

That said, is the relationship we offer people so astounding that it forever changes them? Judging by the article’s dense language and near inpenetrable statistical procedures, you’d assume so. Yet ultimately, it fails to show as much, focusing instead on defining characteristics and qualities of clients amenable to a particular theoretical orientation rather than the relationship.

Now, before you object, please note, I did not say relationships — in life or in therapy — were easy. But therein lies the risk. Challenging or difficult (e.g., a lone gunman taking out a beloved and powerful figure) is equated with complicated (i.e., must have been a conspiracy). Add to that the tendency of professionals to embue their interactions with clients with life-changing significance and voila! we are poised, as a field, to make mountains out of molehills. Nowhere is this more easy to see than in the language we use to describe our work. We “treat,” have “countertransference reactions,” “repair ruptures,” and form “therapeutic alliances” rather than connect, experience frustration (or other feelings), and develop relationships.

It’s time to embrace what 50 years of evidence plainly shows: yes, we offer an important service, an opportunity for someone to feel understood, get support while going through a difficult period, solve problems, learn new and different ways for approaching life’s challenges, and every once in a while –maybe one in a hundred — something more. To do that, what’s needed is humility and a relentless focus on the fundamentals. Given the history of our field, that alone will prove hard enough.