Improvement in Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Depression: A Qualitative Study of the Patients’ Perspective (original) (raw)
2020, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
The patient’s perspective on improvement in psychotherapy is crucial for tailoring the therapy he or she is receiving. The present study aimed at exploring the factors aiding and the patients’ experiences of improvement in time-limited psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with ten adult patients who received up to 28 sessions of manualized psychodynamic psychotherapy in the Norwegian study “Mechanisms of change in psychotherapy” (the MOP study). The post-therapy interviews addressed the participants’ experiences from therapy. The data were analyzed with thematic content analysis and hermeneutic interpretation. The analysis identified four helpful dimensions: “Therapist activities” comprised supporting and acknowledging, advising and offering tips for everyday life, questioning and pressuring. “Patient activities” included opening up, caring for oneself and showing agency. “Facilitators” for improvement were learning from the...
Related papers
American journal of psychotherapy, 2011
The perceptions of patients (n = 25) and their therapists about psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression were assessed during the first treatment year using 23 scales. Patients and therapists independently evaluated the impact of depression on the therapeutic experience of the patients. The estimations of the impact of depression by the patients and therapists were concordant in the majority of the subjects, reflecting mutual tuning and a working alliance. The roles of affects and frustrating subjects in the treatment relationship were evaluated as significantly different by the patients and the therapists. The results highlight the importance of working on the expression of affects in the psychotherapy of depression.
Psychotherapeutic Subjectivities Conclusion
The present dissertation is a qualitative inquiry into the differences in experiences of change in distinct, or even contrary, modalities of psychotherapy—Psychoanalysis (PSA)/Psychodynamic Psychotherapy (PDT) and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). As such, the investigation speaks to the actual effects of a given therapeutic approach in the words and narratives of the patients/analysands/clients. The very intention of such research crosses a number of theoretic debates within clinical psychology that have dogged the therapeutic field and show no signs of abatement any time soon. This research aimed to apply the results derived from empirical data regarding the above psychotherapy modalities to the question of Specific Factors vs. Common Factors and attempted to delineate the impact of interventions in what, as is shown below, must be understood in a Contextual model of psychotherapy that allows for a more nuanced consideration of differences in therapeutic relationships. What I conclude from my data indicates that a Contextual model, specifically that proposed by Butler and Strupp, supersedes the Specific Factors vs. Common Factors dichotomy in its explanatory value for understanding processes of therapeutic change.
Aim: Understanding the effects of psychotherapy is a crucial concern for both research and clinical practice, especially when outcome tends to be negative. Yet, while outcome is predominantly evaluated by means of quantitative pre-post outcome questionnaires, it remains unclear what this actually means for patients in their daily lives. To explore this meaning, it is imperative to combine treatment evaluation with quantitative and qualitative outcome measures. This study investigates the phenomenon of non-improvement in psychotherapy, by complementing quantitative pre-post outcome scores that indicate no reliable change in depression symptoms with a qualitative inquiry of patients' perspectives. Methods: The study took place in the context of a Randomised Controlled Trial evaluating time-limited psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral therapy for major depression. A mixed methods study was conducted including patients' pre-post outcome scores on the BDI-II-NL and post treatment Client Change Interviews. Nineteen patients whose data showed no reliable change in depression symptoms were selected. A grounded theory analysis was conducted on the transcripts of patients' interviews. Findings: From the patients' perspective, non-improvement can be understood as being stuck between knowing versus doing, resulting in a stalemate. Positive changes (mental stability, personal strength, and insight) were stimulated by therapy offering moments of self-reflection and guidance, the benevolent therapist approach and the context as important motivations. Remaining issues (ambition to change but inability to do so) were attributed to the therapy hitting its limits, patients' resistance and impossibility and the context as a source of distress. "No change" in outcome scores therefore seems to involve a "partial change" when considering the patients' perspectives. Conclusion: The study shows the value of integrating qualitative first-person analyses into standard quantitative outcome evaluation and particularly for understanding the phenomenon of non-improvement. It argues for more multi-method and multi-perspective research to gain a better understanding of (negative) outcome and treatment effects. Implications for both research and practice are discussed.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.