1 / 34

Initiating International Collaborative Research Projects in Mental Health:

Initiating International Collaborative Research Projects in Mental Health:. A Progress Report on the International Project on the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy and Psychotherapy Training (IPEPPT). International Project on the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy and Psychotherapy Training (IPEPPT).

hasana
Download Presentation

Initiating International Collaborative Research Projects in Mental Health:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Initiating International Collaborative Research Projects in Mental Health: A Progress Report on the International Project on the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy and Psychotherapy Training (IPEPPT)

  2. International Project on the Effectiveness of Psychotherapy and Psychotherapy Training (IPEPPT) • Formally initiated, June 2004, by: • Italian Coordinamento Nazionale Scuole di Psicoterapia (CNSP; >5,000 therapists) • Italian Federation of Psychotherapy Associations (FIAP; 21 psychotherapy associations: >10,000 therapists) • General Goal: To improve psychotherapy and psychotherapy training in a broad range of theoretical approaches by encouraging systematic research in therapy training institutes and university-based training clinics. • Political purpose: Increase status of involved organizations

  3. IPEPPT General Scientific Steering Committee • Robert Elliott, Scientific Director (University of Toledo-USA) • Alberto Zucconi, Coordinator (University of Siena-Italy) • David Orlinsky (University of Chicago-USA) • Franz Caspar (University of Freiburg) • Louis Castonguay (Pennsylvania State University-USA) • Glenys Parry (University of Sheffield-UK) • Bernhard Strauss (Friedrich Schiller University Jena-Germany)

  4. IPEPPT: Current Status • Still in formation stage • Not a single study • The “Project” = Promoting practice-based research in Europe, North American and elsewhere • Finding partners/applying for EU funding • Creating/finding tools • E.g., conceptual/organizing concepts • Finding/translating instruments • KU Leuven piloting Dutch-language systematic case study protocol

  5. IPEPPT Immediate Objectives • 1. To construct a list of agreed-upon general pantheoretical recommendations for evaluating: • Key aspects of therapy, especially in training centers • Key aspects of therapy training outcome • Not a “Core Battery” • 2. To facilitate the development of specific treatment and training outcome protocols for particular: • Therapy approaches (e.g., Systemic therapy) • Client populations (e.g., people living with schizophrenia) • Linguistic/national groups (e.g., Italy) • 3. To facilitate national/international collaborations

  6. IPEPPT Draft Research Framework • Such a project requires a guiding conceptual framework for determining what to measure and how to measure it • Work-in-progress • 8 measurement domains: • 4 Research themes • 2 Levels (Star design)

  7. Framework: Eight Therapy Measurement Domains, with examples of key concepts

  8. Structure: (1) “Star” Design • Main body of the star = General outcome/ process protocol • Shared by all orientations (General/ Pantheoretical) • Provides common metric • Star rays = Specialized protocols for different therapy approaches and different countries (Treatment/Population/Language Specific)

  9. Dysfunctional Attitudes Self-Ideal Discrepancy CBT Experi- ential Target Problems Experiential Access Implicit Cognitive Biases Self-Esteem General problem severity Interpersonal/ relational issues Qualitative perceptions of change CCRT Change Relational Satisfaction Maturity of Defenses Family Environment Level of Object Relations Interpersonal Empathy Psycho- dynamic Family/ Couples “Star” Design for Sample Concepts within Therapy Outcome Domain for Studies of Four Different Therapies

  10. Structure: (2) Nested Priority Lists • Not a single “core battery” • Allow flexibility while encouraging consistency within & across approaches • Three Levels of Priorities: • Measurement domains are prioritized • Within each measurement domain, key concepts are ranked by approximate importance • For each concept, available instruments are also described (researchers prioritize)

  11. Framework: Eight Therapy Measurement Domains, with examples of key concepts

  12. Example: General Therapy Outcome Domain • Key concepts in a possible recommended priority order: (“Star”) • (1) General problem severity (quantitative) • Give every 2 sessions to reduce data loss from drop-out • (2) Interpersonal/relational functioning • (3) Qualitative perceptions of change • (4) Individualized problems/goals • (5) Health care utilization/costs • (6) Quality of life/life satisfaction/well-being

  13. Common Client Problem Severity Instruments

  14. Framework: Eight Therapy Measurement Domains, with examples of key concepts

  15. Example: General Therapy Process Domain • Key concepts in possible recommended priority order: • (1) Therapeutic alliance • (2) Perceived helpful aspects of therapy • (3) Therapist and client response modes • (4) Perceived session effectiveness

  16. Different Levels of Research Protocol are Possible • I. Minimum Protocol • II. Systematic Case Study Protocol • III. Maximum Protocol Other Protocols: • IV. General Training Protocols • V. Specific Treatment Protocols

  17. I. A Recommended Minimum Protocol: Applications • Easy to use: Limited to one measure from each of the first three research domains • Can use with own clients • Provides basic treatment monitoring for individuals & agencies • Other versions are possible (e.g., different outcome or process measures)

  18. I. A Recommended Minimum Protocol: Elements • (1) General therapy outcome instrument • Client problem severity • Give at odd-numbered sessions (short form) • (2) General therapy process • Therapeutic alliance (use short from) • (3) Client/therapist background measure • Standard practice: • Client/ therapist demographics • Client diagnosis, presenting problems • Type of therapy

  19. II. Systematic Case Study Protocol: Applications • Use for student case study requirements • Meets emerging standards for systematic single case research • New online journal: Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy (Rutgers University, Editor: Fishman)

  20. II. Systematic Case Study Protocol: Elements • A. Therapy Outcome: • (1) Weekly/biweekly outcome measure • (2) At least one other quantitative outcome measure • (3) Qualitative outcome assessment (e.g., post-therapy interview) • B. Therapy Process • (1) Therapeutic alliance • (2) Detailed record of therapy (process notes and/or recordings) • (3) Qualitative perception of helpful aspects (post-session and/or post-therapy) • C. Client/therapist background • Client/ therapist demographics; client diagnosis, presenting problem; type of therapy

  21. II. Systematic Case Study Protocol: Research Questions • (1) Did the client change substantially over the course of therapy? • (2) If the client changed, did therapy make a substantial contribution? • (3) What brought about the client’s changes?

  22. II. Systematic Case Study Protocol: Emerging Evidence Standards • (1) Rich case record, including both quantitative & qualitative data • (2) Replication/convergence across methods • (3) Critical examination of alternative views (e.g., Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design, Elliott, 2002): • Non-change explanations (e.g., measurement error) • Non-therapy explanations (e.g., extra-therapy events) • (4) Narrative coherence • Narrative model of predisposing and process factors • Use for generalizing to other cases

  23. III. Maximum Protocol • Include measures of at least one concept in each of the eight domains • Appropriate for research centers (e.g., Center for the Study of Experiential Psychotherapy) • Also consortia of cooperating centers: • Each center measure some variables

  24. IV. General Training Research Protocols: Issues • Outcomes of therapy training not well understood • Difficulties: • Lack of agreed-upon measures of therapist functioning and skill • Must measure therapist change longitudinally over several years of training • Possible applications: • Use research to improve training • Meet requirements of accrediting and funding agencies

  25. IV. General Training Research Protocols: Promising Concepts • Quality of therapist professional involvement and growth (e.g., Orlinsky &Rønnestad; Collaborative Research Network [CRN]) • Qualitative perceptions of effects and important aspects of training (e.g., qualitative interviews) • General therapist facilitative interpersonal skills (e.g., coping with common difficulties) • Change in therapist self concept (e.g., Scilligo, SASB Introject scales)

  26. V. Specific Treatment Protocols • = Star rays • Applications: For specific theoretical approaches, client populations, or language groups • Requires working committee for each group • Identify relevant therapy outcomes, processes, background variables (or training outcomes) • Do protocol and measure development research • Establish virtual communities for exchanging ideas

  27. V. Specific Protocol Example: • Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapy International Research Group (PCEP-IRG) • Current core members: • University of Toledo (Elliott & team) • Ohio University (Anderson & team) • Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Leijssen & team) • Universities of Strathclyde & Abertay, Scotland (McLeod, Cooper)

  28. V. PCEP-IRG Outcome Protocol: Promising Developments • Center for the Study of Experiential Therapy Research Protocol (CSEP- 2): • Self-determined problems/goals: • Personal Questionnaire (PQ-10) • Self-concept (content & coherence) • Qualitative Self-Description interview • Tennessee Self-Concept Scale 2 (long, short forms) • Experiential processing: • Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) • Need positive mental health measures, self-coherence, etc.

  29. V. Specific Training Research Protocols • Some Possible Types of Specific Training Outcomes: • Mastery of therapy theory/knowledge • Case formulation skill (e.g., use clinical vignettes) • Treatment-specific intervention skill • Therapist personal development (e.g., maturity, identification with orientation, values)

  30. Promising New Therapy Research Methods Make this Work Possible • Systematic qualitative research methods • Interpretive single case designs (Fishman, Elliott) • Using early outcome to identify & repair problems (Lambert: Signal alarm methods) • New, powerful psychometric methods (Rasch analysis/Item Response Theory) • Virtual communities (Community Zero)

  31. Lessons Learned So Far • Importance of vision and leadership • Leading by example is important • Both immediate and longterm payoffs offs are important • These things eat up a lot of time • Grant funding is not necessary and can complicate broad collaborations • Clinically interesting examples are useful to persuading skeptical possible participants • Progress is possible in creating a research climate in training institutes and schools

  32. Invitation to Dialogue - 1 1) Provide comments and suggestions on the framework & concepts presented here: Robert.Elliott@utoledo.edu 2) Form or join online discussion groups or virtual communities • Closed sites; must apply for membership • General info: www.communityzero.com/ipepp • Example: www.communityzero.com/pcepirp • Open site under development: www.ipeppt.net 3) Begin implementing the minimum protocol design with your own clients and in your own training setting.

  33. Invitation to Dialogue - 2 4) Convert traditional case presentation training requirements into systematic case study exercises 5) Help with translations of key research instruments 6) Contribute to psychometric research: • Improve existing instruments • Equate different instruments for same concepts 7) Collaborate with groups with similar interests to generate data for pooling.

More Related