Effects of talking about side effects versus not talking about side effects on the therapeutic alliance: A controlled clinical trial

Author:

Muschalla Beate1ORCID,Müller Julia1,Grocholewski Anja1,Linden Michael2

Affiliation:

1. Department of Psychotherapy and Diagnostics Technische Universität Braunschweig Braunschweig Germany

2. Department of Psychosomatic Medicine Charité University Medicine Berlin Berlin Germany

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionSide effects of psychotherapy are common. Therapists and patients must recognize negative developments to take countermeasure. Therapists can be reluctant to talk about problems of their own treatment. The hypothesis could be that talking about side effects can impair the therapeutic relationship.MethodsWe examined whether a systematic monitoring and discussion of side effects has a negative effect on therapeutic alliance. Intervention group (IG) therapists and patients filled in the UE‐PT scale (unwanted events in the view of patient and therapists scale) and discussed their mutual ratings (IG, n = 20). As unwanted events can be independent of therapy, but also be treatment‐related side effects, the UE‐PT‐scale first asks for UE and then for their relation to the ongoing treatment. In the control group (CG, n = 16) treatment was done without any special side effect monitoring. Both groups filled in the Scale for Therapeutic Alliance (STA‐R).ResultsIG‐therapists reported various unwanted events in 100% and patients in 85% of cases: complexity of problems, burdensome or overdemanding therapy, problems with work, and symptom deterioration. Any side effect was reported in 90% by therapists and in 65% by patients. Most frequent side effects were demoralization and worsening of symptoms.IG therapists observed an improvement of global therapeutic alliance in STA‐R (M = 3.08 to M = 3.31, p = 0.024, interaction effect in ANOVA with two groups and measurement repetition), and reduced patient fear (M = 1.21 to M = 0.91, p = 0.012). IG patients perceived improvement in bond (M = 3.45 to M = 3.70, p = 0.045). In the CG no comparable changes were seen (alliance M = 2.97 to M = 3.00; patient fear M = 1.20 to M = 1.36; patient‐perceived bond M = 3.41 to M = 3.36).ConclusionThe initial hypothesis must be rejected. The results suggest that monitoring, and discussion of side effects can even improve the therapeutic alliance. Therapists must not be afraid that this will endanger the therapeutic process. The use of a standardized instrument like the UE‐PT‐scale seems helpful.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

Cited by 5 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3