Public Attitudes Toward Mental Health Services: A Change for the Worse

July 3, 2014 By scottdm 1 Comment

The results are not encouraging. A recent meta-analysis found that public attitudes toward psychotherapy have become progressively more negative over the last 40 years. The impact on practitioners is staggering. Between 1997 and 2007, use of psychotherapy declined by 35%. Not surprisingly, clinicians’ incomes also suffered, dropping 15-20% over the last decade.

So, if not psychotherapy, what do consumers of mental health services really want?

Well, if you trust the study I’ve cited, the answer seems clear: drugs. During the same time period that talking fell out of favor, use of pharmaceuticals increased a whopping 75%! Some blame society’s short attention span and desire for a “quick fix.” Such an argument hardly seems credible, however, given that psychotherapy works to alleviate distress as fast or faster than most psychotropics.

Others, including the authors of the meta-analysis, blame public education campaigns and pharmacological marketing aimed at “convincing the public that mental disorders have a neurobiological etiology that require biological treatments” (p. 103). At first glance, this idea is compelling. After all, every year, the pharmaceutical industry spends $5 billion dollars on direct-to-consumer advertising.

And yet, what is it the drug companies are really selling in those ads? In one of the most well-known TV commercials for a popular antidepressant, less than 7 seconds is spent on the supposed neurobiological cause. Instead, the majority of the time is spent depicting the positive results one can expect from the product. It’s marketing 101: focus on the benefits not the features of whatever you’re selling.

What do consumers want? The answer is: results. Your training, degree, certification, and treatment approach are irrelevant, mere features most consumers could care less about. Your rate of effectiveness is another matter entirely–its the benefit people are looking for from working with you.

So, how effective are you? Do you know? Not a guess or a hunch, but the actual number of people you treat that are measurably improved? If not, its easy to get started. Start by downloading two, simple, free, well-researched scales for measuring progress and quality of mental health services. Next, visit the ICCE Youtube channel for tips on how individual practitioners and agencies can use these tools to monitor and improve outcome and retention in treatment.

To see how outcomes attract consumers, just take a look at the Colorado Center for Clinical Excellence website. This Denver-based group of practitioners is a model for the future of clinical practice.

Is Supervision Important to you?

June 20, 2014 By scottdm 1 Comment

How valuable is clinical supervision to you? In their massive, long-term international study of therapist development, researchers Orlinsky and Rønnestad (2005) found that “practitioners at all experience levels, theoretical orientations, professions, and nationalities report that supervised client experience is highly important for their current and career development” (p. 188).

Despite the value most of us place on the process, the latest review of the literature found no empirical evidence, “that psychotherapy supervision contributes to patient outcome” (Watkins, 2011). Said another way, supervision does not produce more effective clinicians. The result? In the US, at least, opportunities for clinical supervision are in the decline, replaced by growing documentation requirements and administrative oversight–a trend destined to continue if the dearth of evidence persists.

What can be done? Simply put, solicit formal feedback from clients regarding their experience of progress and the therapeutic relationship. Such information, in turn, can be used to guide supervision, providing both a focus for the consultation and data supporting its effectiveness. After all, multiple studies already document that the process improves outcomes while simultaneously decreasing drop out and deterioration rates (Miller, 2013 ).

Getting started is not difficult. First, access two, free, easy-to-use scales for monitoring client progress and the relationship. Second, join colleagues at the ICCE online community. It’s free–no hidden costs or secret levels of premium content. On the ICCE, you can connect and consult with practitioners who are using feedback to improve the quality and outcome of treatment and supervision.

Is your therapy making your clients worse? The Guardian Strikes Again

June 12, 2014 By scottdm 1 Comment

A while ago, an article appeared in The Guardian, one of the U.K.’s largest daily newspapers. “Counselling and Therapy can be Harmful,” the headline boldly asserted, citing results of a study yet to be published. It certainly got my attention.

Do some people in therapy get worse? The answer is, most assuredly, “Yes.” Research dating back several decades puts the figure at about 10% (Lambert, 2010). Said another way, at termination, roughly one out of ten people are functioning more poorly than they were at the beginning of treatment.

The cause? Here’s what we know. Despite claims to the contrary (e.g., Lilenfeld, 2007), no psychotherapy approach tested in a clinical trial has ever been shown to reliably lead to or increase the chances of deterioration. NONE. Scary stories about dangerous psychological treatments are limited to a handful of fringe therapies–approaches that have been never vetted scientifically and which all practitioners, but a few, avoid.

So, if it’s not about the method, then how to account for deterioration? As the article points out, “some therapists had a lot more clients [who] deteriorated than others.” And yet, while that statement is true–lots of prior research shows that some do more harm than others–there are too few such clinicians to account for the total number of clients who worsen. Moreover, beyond that 10%, between 30 and 50% of people in treatment experience no benefit whatsoever!

Here is where the old adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” applies. Whatever the cause, lack of progress and risk of deterioration are issues for allclinicians. A growing body of research makes clear, the key to addressing the problem is tracking the progress of clients from visit to visit so that those not improving, or getting worse, can be identified and offered alternatives.