The implications of psychotherapy research for clinical practice and service development: Lessons and limitations

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY D. ROTH & GLENYS PARRY
Author(s):  
Graham R. Thew ◽  
Louise Fountain ◽  
Paul M. Salkovskis

AbstractWhile the benefits of routine outcome measurement have been extolled and to some degree researched, it is surprising that service user opinions on this common therapy practice have largely not been investigated. This study aimed to assess service users’ experiences of completing measures during psychological therapy, with a view to exploring how therapists can maximize how helpful measures are in therapy. Fifteen participants completed surveys about the use of measures in their current episode of care. Ten clinicians also completed a survey about their use of, and views about, measures. Results showed that despite mixed experiences in how measures were explained and used, service users showed generally favourable attitudes towards their use in therapy, with them being perceived as most helpful when well integrated into sessions by their therapists. Clinicians reported using a wide range of measures, and generally endorsed positive beliefs about measures more strongly than negative ones. Implications for clinical practice, service development, and further research are discussed.


2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy D. Safran ◽  
Iris Abreu ◽  
Joseph Ogilvie ◽  
Anthony DeMaria

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolina Altimir ◽  
Juan Pablo Jiménez

After more than a century of existence, theoretical development, research, and clinical practice within the psychoanalytic movement have consistently demonstrated that psychoanalysis is not a unitary and autonomous discipline. This has been evidenced by the various ways in which psychoanalytic thought and practice have been informed by and have established a dialogue—more or less fruitful—with related disciplines (neurosciences, developmental psychology, psychotherapy research, attachment theory and research, feminism, philosophy). This dialogue has contributed to a better understanding of the functioning of the human psyche, and therefore of the analytic process, informing clinical interventions. In turn, it has enriched research on psychoanalytic practice and process, underlining the fact that research in psychoanalysis is fundamentally about clinical practice. Since its origins, psychoanalysis has made explicit the work on the patient-analyst relationship as the terrain in which the analytic process unfolds. For its part, research in psychotherapy has demonstrated the relevance of the therapeutic relationship for the good development and outcome of any psychotherapeutic process. This supports the argument that research in clinical psychoanalysis should be research on the impact of the analyst interventions on the analyst-patient relationship. In this context, a central element of what happens in the analytic relationship refers to affect communication and therefore, affect regulation, which is manifested in the transferential and counter-transferential processes, as well as in the therapeutic bond. On the other hand, affective regulation is found at the crossroads of etiopathogenesis, complex personality models and psychopathology, allowing the understanding of human functioning and the staging of these configurations in the patient-analyst relationship. In this way, research on affective regulation in the analytic process is proposed as a path that exemplifies interdisciplinary research and scientific pluralism from which psychoanalysis enriches and progresses as a discipline. The case of a line of research on affective regulation in psychoanalytic psychotherapy is illustrated. The need to resort to other disciplines, as well as the translational value of our research and its clinical usefulness, is discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Edwards ◽  
Viv Barros D'Sa ◽  
Fiona Hicks

To implement the National End of Life Care strategy and enable more people to express and achieve their preferences about care at the end of life, senior clinicians outside palliative medicine need to make it a routine part of their practice. However, it is acknowledged that recognising that people are entering the last phase of their illness is not always straightforward, and having conversations about aims of treatment and planning for future care may not be easy. In order to begin to address these challenges, funding was sought from the Yorkshire and the Humber Strategic Health Authority (SHA), and subsequently Health Education England, Yorkshire and the Humber (HEEYH), to pilot a development programme in 2 acute trusts. 2 palliative medicine consultants shared the trainer role at each site, supporting hospital consultants from a range of specialties, with a GP to give a community perspective. The programme involved individual clinicians identifying their own learning needs and specific issues for end-of-life care in their patients. The group met together monthly in action learning sets to discuss issues in a safe yet challenging environment. Following evaluation using a combination of training needs analyses, feedback questionnaires, audits and service evaluations, it was modified slightly and repiloted in 2 further trusts as ‘Rethinking Priorities’. This paper describes the programme and its outcomes, especially in relation to participants' learning, service development and leadership. It also highlights the challenges, including different learning styles, the concept of action learning, obtaining funding and dedicated time, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of a programme. Overall, it suggests that an educational initiative based on clinicians identifying their own learning needs, and using an action learning approach to explore issues with other colleagues, with the addition of some targeted sessions, can result in positive change in knowledge, behaviour and clinical practice.


2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Borckardt ◽  
Michael R. Nash ◽  
Martin D. Murphy ◽  
Mark Moore ◽  
Darlene Shaw ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document