L6 - Theories in Practice Flashcards
(76 cards)
What are the learning objectives?
+ lecture overview
- Describe different forms of cognitive behavioral therapy, including their (contra-) indications and practical considerations [paraphrasing]
- Describe the phenomenon of ‘therapist drift’, including its manifestations and causes [paraphrasing].
- Critically reflect on common factors of psychotherapy in relation to evidence based practice [analysing, scientific thinking].
- Reflect on whether there is a gap between science and clinical practice and its possible implications [analysing, scientific thinking]
- implementation science and therapeutic drift
- insights from Duygu Yakin
Theories
- help us better understand the world, and intervene in this world (e.g. bridge building)
- psychological theories work less than more concrete theories
> they are more complex
> models are not fomalized well (there are relations but we don’t know how)
> all basic models still used in clinical practice
what is the current debate in the psychology field, regarding models?
- some say that models are really there for the therapist
> models don’t actually work because they don’t predict the future so well
> many meta-analyses show that there is an average effect of all therapies, but models are mainly for therapist to have a ritual with the patient
> patient comes in with expectations, and the working mechanism of psychotherapy is the relation between patient’s expectations and therapy setting - others argue that there is evidence that psychotherapy is effective; if there is evidence that is not as effective, it’s because people are critical about it
Eclectic forms of therapy - what does it mean?
Eclectic = “composed of elements drawn by various sources”
- in psychotherapy, many clinicians pick facets of treatments that work and create personalized treatments (especially after practicing for a while)
How long does it take for research to be implemented into practice?
- 17 years
> psychiatry → 11 years
Why is that important to consider? (that it takes a while for research to be implemented into practice)
- idea is that we use evidence-based treatment to have the best option for patients to recover, so if patients don’t get treatments that are based on evidence, they might not have no effect/efficient treatment
- evidence-based randomized trials is something that the government needs in order to give fundings (no fundings if no scientific evidence)
Dealing with suicidal behavior, in the past
- how was suicide dealt with, in practice?
- there was a legal document that the patient had to sign, that he wouldn’t hurt himself
- no clear guideline until 2012
- clinicians don’t deal with this topic
- patients are ashamed of themselves
Dealing with suicide in the past
In theory vs in practice
- guideline states that suicidal behavior should be actively discussed
- risk assessment tools should not be used in clinical practice
- they went straight to the solution (advice), instead of listening and understanding (why and how intense…)
- professionals do not deal much with the topic of suicide, but why?
Dealing with suicide in the past
Why didn’t clinicians deal with the topic of suicide?
- not well trained
- afraid of increasing risk by talking about it
- afraid of legal and organizational consequences
Dealing with suicide in the past
the Guideline on suicide prevention
- what was the problem with that?
- more than 300 pages → people don’t read it
- difficult to translate guideline to practice
> so trainings + e-learning were introduced
Dealing with suicide in the past
Core of the Guideline
- making contact
- physical safety
- continuity of care
- involving significant others (interpersonal processes are super important for recovery, despite privacy of therapy)
Dealing with suicide in the past
Chronological Assessment of Suicidal Episodes (CASE)
- interview technique to ask for suicidal thoughts
1. actual suicidal thoughts (understanding what and how intense)
→ 2. recent events (why, what happened recently)
→ 3. earlier episodes (family history, previous history)
→ 4. hopes for the future
Dealing with suicide in the past
CASE - how was the model intended?
- when someone makes a suicide attempt, this model is supposed to help to understand all the factors
- not every section should be asked necessarily
> no real evidence that this model would work
> shows that models can be tailored and changed
Suicide prevention
What study did the lecturer make on dealing with suicide?
- he made a huge study throughout the Netherlands, with therapists (randomized trial)
- condition 1: therapists are trained on suicide prevention
- condition 2: therapists are not yet trained (trained in follow-up condition)
Suicide prevention
RQ of study for suicide prevention
- if people do not get trained (control condition), do they actually read the guideline? Will they do better if they are actually in the trained condition?
- the guideline was discussed in both conditions, but does getting the training actually increase the confidence of working with a suicidal patient?
- do patients of therapists in training condition recover more quickly from suicide ideation?
Suicide prevention
what did they assess in the suicide prevention study?
In therapists:
- self-confidence
- knowledge
- guideline adherence
In patients:
- suicide ideation
- suicide attempt
- treatment satisfaction
- cost-effectiveness
Suicide prevention
Results - professionals
(after 3 months)
- reading the guideline:
> 85% in training condition
> 20% in control condition
- training condition:
> more guideline adherence
> more self-reported knowledge
> more self-reported confidence
Suicide prevention
Results - Patients
- 881 patients, 567 with suicidal thoughts at baseline
> no effect for the intervention for all patients
> post-hoc effect for the patients with diagnosis of depression
> suicide ideation decreased quicker when patients were treated by professionals that followed the traning
Suicide prevention
What happened to the Guideline since then?
- much research happened, and the guideline had to be updated:
> group of experts from both science and clinical practice
> psychiatry is the lead field to update it
> there is support from research group to look for meta-analytic evidence
> people are assigned to chapters of the guideline, usually in pairs or trios
Suicide prevention
the Guideline-modification
- what were the results of the meta-analysis?
- while updating the guideline, a meta-analysis was created: “Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts after direct or indirect psychotherapy
→ results: - both direct and indirect psychotherapies can be used to reduce the severity of suicidal ideation and risk of suicidal attempts
Suicide prevention
what was the consequence of this meta-analysis?
- since the difference of direct & indirect psychotherapies is approximately equal, a choice can be made, in consultation with the patient and their loved ones
- direct, indirect, combination
= recommendations are not clear, guideline is still in progress
so, why does it take so long for research to come into practice?
- guidelines need to be studied
→ randomized controlled trials
→ updates
→ meta-analyses
→ unclear recommendations
→ replications and more studies
→ …
The implementation and adherence of… (article in lecture)
What and how?
- CBT vs IPT on adherence to protocols
- videotaped therapies
- interviewed therapists and asked them about the adherence to protocols
- created themes based on answers
The implementation and adherence of… (article in lecture)
Results
→ modifications are common practice
→ people don’t follow protocols (e.g. not trained enough), and personalize treatments all the time