Understanding Long-term Outcome from the Patients’ Perspective: A Mixed Methods Naturalistic Study on Inpatient Psychotherapy

Melissa De Smet; Reitske Meganck

doi:10.5334/pb.432

Abstract

Objective: The complex phenomenon of psychotherapy outcome requires further conceptual and methodological developments that facilitate clinically meaningful research findings. In this study, we rely on an idiosyncratic and process-oriented understanding of treatment effects in order to investigate long-term outcome. A conceptual model of long-term outcome is presented that comprises both a taxonomy of change and explanatory factors.
Method: A mixed methods naturalistic study was conducted in an inpatient psychotherapy setting. Long-term quantitative outcome data are complemented with a data-driven thematic analysis of interviews with 22 participants, five to six years after ending inpatient psychotherapy.
Results: Long-term outcome findings show improved well-being for the majority of former patients and this until five to six years after treatment. From the patients’ perspectives, long-term changes can be situated on different interrelated existential levels: reconnection to others and (the meaning of) life, a revelation, an altered self, life changes, and altered expectations and ideas about recovery and treatment. The complex interplay of the person, the therapy centre, the outside world and the evolution over time helped explain the experienced changes and individual differences.
Conclusion: The findings support the value of an idiosyncratic and process-oriented understanding of outcome and recovery as well as substantiate the importance of multiple methods and perspectives when studying the effects of psychotherapy.

References

1American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Text Revision (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Back to article
2APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. Retrieved from: http://www.ovid.com/site/index.jsp. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271
Back to article
3Binder, P. E., Holgersen, H., & Nielsen, G. H. (2009). What is a “good outcome” in psychotherapy? A qualitative exploration of former patients’ point of view. Psychotherapy Research (iFirst), 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/10503300903376338
Back to article
4Binder, P. E., Schanche, E., Holgersen, H., Nielsen, G. H., Hjeltnes, A., Stige, S. H., Multu, C., et al. (2016). Why do we need qualitative research on psychological treatments? The case for discovery, reflexivity, critique, receptivity, and evocation. Scandinavian Psychologist, 3, 1–22. DOI: 10.15714/scandpsychol.3.e8
Back to article
5Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. The American Psychologist, 61(1), 27–41. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.62
Back to article
6Bohart, C. A., & Wade, A. M. (2013). The client in psychotherapy. In: Lambert, M. J. (ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6th Ed.), 219–257. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Back to article
7Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London, England: Sage.
Back to article
8Braakmann, D. (2015). Historical paths in psychotherapy research. In: Gelo, O. C. G., Pritz, A., & Rieken, B. (eds.), Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process and outcome, 39–66. Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Back to article
9Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Back to article
10Castonguay, L., Barkham, M., Lutz, W., & McAleavey, A. (2013). Practice-oriented research: Approaches and applications. In: Lambert, M. J. (ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (6th Ed.), 85–133. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Back to article
11Clarkin, J. F., & Levy, K. N. (2004). The influence of client variables on psychotherapy. In: Lambert, M. J. (ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (5th Ed.), 194–226. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Back to article
12Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124–130. Retrieved from: https://people.ucsc.edu. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2
Back to article
13de Jong, K., Nugter, M. A., Lambert, M. J., & Burlingame, G. M. (2008). Handleiding voor afname en scoring van de Outcome Questionnaire OQ-45.2. Salt Lake City.
Back to article
14de Jong, K., Nugter, M. A., Polak, M. G., Wagenborg, J. A. E., Spinhoven, P., & Heiser, W. J. (2007). The Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) in a Dutch population: A cross-cultural validation. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14, 288–301. DOI: 10.1002/cpp.529
Back to article
15Delespaul, P., Milo, M., Schalken, F., Boevink, W., & van Os, J. (2016). Goede GGZ! Nieuwe concepten, aangepaste taal en betere organisatie. Netherlands: Diagnosis publishers.
Back to article
16De Los Reyes, A., Kundey, S. M. A., & Wang, M. (2011). The end of the primary outcome measure: A research agenda for constructing its replacement. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 829–838. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.03.011
Back to article
17Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Back to article
18Ekroll, V. B., & Rønnestad, M. H. (2016). Processes and changes experienced by clients during and after naturalistic good-outcome therapies conducted by experienced psychotherapists. Psychotherapy Research, 3307, 1–19. DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2015.1119326
Back to article
19Elliott, R., Slatick, E., & Urman, M. (2001). Qualitative change process research on psychotherapy: Alternative strategies. In: Frommer, J., & Rennie, D. L. (eds.), Qualitative psychotherapy research: Methods and methodology, 69–111. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
Back to article
20Englebert, J., Follet, V., & Valentiny, C. (2017). Anorexia Nervosa and first-person perspective: Altruism, family system and body experience. Psychopathology, 51, 24–30. DOI: 10.1159/000485629
Back to article
21Englebert, J., Stanhellini, G., Valentiny, C., Fuchs, T., & Sass, L. (2018). Hyper-reflexivité et perspective en première personne: Un apport décisif de la psychopathologie phénoménologique contemporaine à la comprehension de la schizophrénie. L’évolution psychiatrique, 83, 77–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.evopsy.2017.07.004
Back to article
22Gaudiano, B. A., & Miller, I. W. (2013). The evidence-based practice of psychotherapy: Facing the challenges that lie ahead. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 813–824. Retrieved from: http://www.womha.com. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.004
Back to article
23Giorgi, A., & Giorgi, B. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In: Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. (eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expending perspectives in methods and design, 243–274. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI: 10.1037/10595-013
Back to article
24Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Back to article
25Greenberg, R. P., Constantino, M. J., & Bruce, N. (2006). Are patient expectations still relevant for psychotherapy process and outcome? Clinical psychology review, 26(6), 657–678. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.03.002
Back to article
26Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research, merging theory with practice. Guilford press, New York.
Back to article
27Hill, C. E., Chui, H., & Baumann, E. (2013). Revisiting and reenvisioning the outcome problem in psychotherapy: An argument to include individualized and qualitative measurement. Psychotherapy, 50(1), 68–76. DOI: 10.1037/a0030571
Back to article
28Hill, C. E., & Lambert, M. J. (2004). Methodological issues in studying psychotherapy processes and outcomes. In: Lambert, M. J. (ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (5th Ed.), 84–135. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Back to article
29Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The counselling psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. DOI: 10.1177/0011000097254001
Back to article
30Huber, M., Knottnernus, J. A., Green, L., van der Horst, V., Jadad, A. R., Kromhout, D., Smid, H., et al. (2011). How should we define health? British Medical Journal, 1–3. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d4163
Back to article
31Imel, Z., & Wampold, B. (2008). The importance of treatment and the science of common factors in psychotherapy. In: Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (eds.), Handbook of counselling psychology (4th Ed.), 249–262. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Back to article
32Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19. DOI: 10.1037//0022-006X.59.1.12
Back to article
33Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Arbitrary metrics: Implications for identifying evidence-based treatments. The American Psychologist, 61(1), 42–71. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.42
Back to article
34Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Evidence-based treatment and practice – New opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. American Psychologist, 63(3), 146–159. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066x.63.3.146
Back to article
35Kiesler, D. J. (1966). Some Myths of Psychotherapy Research and the Search for A Paradigm. Psychotherapy Research, 5(2), 110–136. DOI: 10.1080/10503309512331331186
Back to article
36Klein, M. J., & Elliott, R. (2006). Client accounts of personal change in process experiential psychotherapy: A methodologically pluralistic approach. Psychotherapy Research, 16, 91–105. DOI: 10.1080/10503300500090993
Back to article
37Kösters, M., Burlingame, G. M., Nachtigall, C., & Strauss, B. (2006). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of inpatient group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(2), 146–163. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.2.146
Back to article
38Kühnlein, I. (1999). Psychotherapy as a Process of Transformation: Analysis of Post-therapeutic Autobiographic Narrations. Psychotherapy Research, 9(3), 274–287. DOI: 10.1080/10503309912331332761
Back to article
39Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Back to article
40Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., Umphress, V., Lunnen, K., Okiishi, J., Burlingame, G. M., & Reisinger, C. W. (1996). Administration and scoring manual for the OQ-45.2. East Setauket, NY: American Professional Credentialing Services.
Back to article
41Leichsenring, F. (2004). Randomized controlled versus naturalistic studies: A new research agenda. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 68(2), 137–151. DOI: 10.1521/bumc.68.2.137.35952
Back to article
42Leszcz, M., Yalom, I. D., & Norden, M. (1985). The value of inpatient group psychotherapy: Patients’ perceptions. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 35(3), 411–433. DOI: 10.1080/00207284.1985.11491425
Back to article
43Levitt, H. M., Stanley, C. M., Frankel, Z., & Raina, K. (2005). An evaluation of outcome measures used in humanistic psychotherapy research: Using thermometers to weigh oranges. The Humanistic Psychologist, 33, 113–130. DOI: 10.1207/s15473333thp3302_3
Back to article
44McLeod, J. (2011). Qualitative research in counselling and psychotherapy. London, England: Sage.
Back to article
45McLeod, J. (2016). Using research in counselling and psychotherapy. London, England: sage.
Back to article
46Midgley, N., Ansaldo, F., & Target, M. (2014). The meaningful assessment of therapy outcomes: Incorporating a qualitative study into a RCT evaluating the treatment of adolescent depression. Psychotherapy, 51(1), 128–137. DOI: 10.1037/a0034179
Back to article
47Midgley, N., Target, M., & Smith, J. (2006). The outcome of child psychoanalysis from the patient’s point of view: A qualitative analysis of a long-term follow-up study. Psychology and Psychotherapy, 79, 257–269. DOI: 10.1348/147608305X52694
Back to article
48Mortelmans, D. (2011). Kwalitatieve analyse met Nvivo. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
Back to article
49Nilsson, T., Svensson, M., Sandell, R., & Clinton, D. (2007). Patients’ experiences of change in cognitive-behavioural therapy and psychodynamic therapy: A qualitative comparative study. Psychotherapy Research, 20, 37–41. DOI: 10.1080/10503300601139988
Back to article
50Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). What works for whom: Tailoring psychotherapy to the person. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 127–132. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20764
Back to article
51Rieken, B., & Gelo, O. C. G. (2015). The philosophy of psychotherapy science: Mainstream and alternative views. In: Gelo, O. C. G., Pritz, A., & Rieken, B. (eds.), Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process and outcome, 67–92. Vienna, Austria: Springer.
Back to article
52Slade, P. M., & Longden, E. (2015). Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health. Bio Med Central Psychiatry, 1–14. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-015-0678-4
Back to article
53Slife, B. D. (2004). Theoretical challenges to therapy practice and research: The constraint of naturalism. In: Lambert, M. J. (ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change (5th Ed.), 44–83. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Back to article
54Stiles, W. B. (1993). Quality Control in Qualitative Research. Clinical psychology Review, 13, 593–618. DOI: 10.1016/0272-7358(93)90048-Q
Back to article
55Stiles, W. B., & Shapiro, D. A. (1989). Abuse of the drug metaphor in psychotherapy process-outcome research. Clinical Psychology Review, 9(4), 521–543. DOI: 10.1016/0272-7358(89)90007-X
Back to article
56Stiles, W. B., Shapiro, D. A., & Harper, H. (1994). Finding the way from process to outcome: Blind alleys and unmarked trails. In: Russell, R. L. (ed.), Reassessing psychotherapy research, 65–113. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Back to article
57Strupp, H. H., & Hadley, S. W. (1977). A tripartite model of mental health and therapeutic outcome: With specific reference to negative effects in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 32, 187–196. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.3.187
Back to article
58Thurin, J.-M., & Thurin, M. (2007). Évaluer les psychothérapies, méthodes et pratiques. Dunod.
Back to article
59Tschuschke, V., & Dies, R. R. (1994). Intensive analysis of therapeutic factors and outcome in long-term inpatient groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 44(2), 185–208. DOI: 10.1080/00207284.1994.11490742
Back to article
60Valkonen, J., Hanninen, V., & Lindfors, O. (2011). Outcomes of psychotherapy from the perspective of the users. Psychotherapy Research: Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 21(2), 227–240. DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2010.548346
Back to article
61Werbart, A., von Below, C., Brun, J., & Gunnarsdottir, H. (2015). “Spinning one’s wheels”: Nonimproved patients view their psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 25(5), 546–64. DOI: 10.1080/10503307.2014.989291
Back to article
62Westen, D., Novotny, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2004). The Empirical Status of Empirically Supported Psychotherapies: Assumptions, Findings, and Reporting in Controlled Clinical Trials. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 631–663. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.631
Back to article