Therapeutic relationship elements and therapy session outcomes: Protocol for a longitudinal study of the patient’s perspective.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

There is a growing recognition of the key role of the therapeutic relationship in the outcomes of psychotherapy. However, current understanding of its specific components, their interplay and related patient-therapist dynamics is limited.

Objective

(a) To validate two self-report measures to assess subjective affective reactions of patients toward their psychotherapists during specific therapy sessions, and (b) to explore the relationships and dynamics among four elements of the therapeutic relationship: patient reactions toward the therapist, working alliance, alliance ruptures and repairs, and the real relationship.

Methods

This study uses a nonrandomized, two-time point longitudinal design. The target population is adult patients currently engaged in individual psychotherapy for heterogeneous mental conditions. Participants are recruited through two online recruitment platforms: Research for Me and ResearchMatch. Data collection involves administering two surveys through the Qualtrics online survey platform. The baseline survey assesses information about the most recent therapy session and the preceding week, while the follow-up survey collects data on the subsequent therapy session and the days leading up to it.

Discussion

This research offers three main contributions: (a) it furthers evidence-based assessment in psychotherapy by creating and validating two novel, succinct self-report tools; (b) it enhances theoretical understanding within therapeutic relationship research by exploring the significant impact of patients' perceptions of relationship elements on session outcomes variability; and (c) it will identify therapeutic relationship elements that can either enhance or hinder the overall relationship quality and session outcomes.

Ethics and dissemination

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The results will be published in indexed peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant psychology and psychiatry conferences.

Related collections

Most cited references 37

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

Robert L Spitzer, Kurt Kroenke, Janet B W Williams … (2006)

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.

0 comments Cited 7542 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

K Kroenke, R L Spitzer, J. Williams (2001)

While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.

0 comments Cited 6410 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner … (2009)

G*Power is a free power analysis program for a variety of statistical tests. We present extensions and improvements of the version introduced by Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and Buchner (2007) in the domain of correlation and regression analyses. In the new version, we have added procedures to analyze the power of tests based on (1) single-sample tetrachoric correlations, (2) comparisons of dependent correlations, (3) bivariate linear regression, (4) multiple linear regression based on the random predictor model, (5) logistic regression, and (6) Poisson regression. We describe these new features and provide a brief introduction to their scope and handling.

0 comments Cited 5340 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Alberto Stefana: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-7184

Paolo Fusar-Poli: Role: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

Eduard Vieta: Role: Funding AcquisitionRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

Eric A. Youngstrom: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Open Res Eur

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Open Res Eur

Title: Open Research Europe

Publisher: F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )

ISSN (Electronic): 2732-5121

Publication date (Electronic): 4 June 2024

Publication date Collection: 2023

Volume: 3

Electronic Location Identifier: 133

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy

[2 ]Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, SE5 8AF, UK

[3 ]OASIS Service, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE5 8AZ, UK

[4 ]Bipolar and Depressive Disorders Unit, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08028, Spain

[5 ]Helping Give Away Psychological Science, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, USA

[6 ]Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, USA

[7 ]Institute for Mental and Behavioral Health Research, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Division of Child and Family Psychiatry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 43205, USA

[1 ]ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

[1 ]Sofia University, Sofia, Bulgaria

[1 ]ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Italy

Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italia, Italy

Author notes

[a ] alberto.stefana@ 123456gmail.com

Competing interests: Dr. Eric Youngstrom has received royalties from the American Psychological Association and Guilford Press, and consulted about psychological assessment with Signant Health. He is the co-founder and Executive Director of Helping Give Away Psychological Science (HGAPS.org). Dr. Eduard Vieta has received grants and served as consultant, advisor or CME speaker for the following entities: AB-Biotics, AbbVie, Adamed, Angelini, Biogen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celon Pharma, Compass, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Ethypharm, Ferrer, Gedeon Richter, GH Research, Glaxo-Smith Kline, Janssen, Lundbeck, Medincell, Merck, Novartis, Orion Corporation, Organon, Otsuka, Roche, Rovi, Sage, Sanofi-Aventis, Sunovion, Takeda, and Viatris, outside the submitted work. Dr. Alberto Stefana and Dr. Paolo Fusar-Poli have nothing to disclose.

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Author information

Alberto Stefana https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-7184

Article

DOI: 10.12688/openreseurope.16466.2

PMC ID: 11310652

SO-VID: 08acc92a-04e1-475e-ae30-35f222a51a84

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Date accepted : 20 May 2024

Funding

Funded by: Horizon Europe Framework Programme

Award ID: 101030608

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101030608.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Therapeutic relationship elements and therapy session outcomes: Protocol for a longitudinal study of the patient’s perspective.

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Discussion

Ethics and dissemination

Related collections

Trace Elements and Electrolytes

Most cited references 37

A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 74

Most referenced authors 598