Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38895499›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024

How do we know whether treatment has failed? Paradoxical outcomes in counseling with young people.

John McLeod, Erik Stänicke, Hanne Weie Oddli, Stephanie Smith, Peter Pearce, Mick Cooper

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

John McLeodInstitute for Integrative Counselling and Psychotherapy, Dublin, Ireland.
Erik StänickeDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Hanne Weie OddliDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Stephanie SmithResearch and Policy, National Children's Bureau, London, United Kingdom.
Peter PearceFaculty of Applied Social and Organisational Sciences, Metanoia Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Mick CooperSchool of Psychology, University of Roehampton, Roehampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In both routine practice contexts and research studies, evidence from standardized self-report symptom measures, administered pre- and post-treatment, is predominantly used to determine whether psychotherapy has been successful. Understanding the nature of unsuccessful psychotherapy requires an ability to evaluate the credibility of outcome data generated by such techniques. An important body of research has identified discrepancies between outcomes assessed through symptom measures and those obtained from other sources. However, not enough is known about the extent to which such Objective: This study analyzes the relationship between outcomes, as assessed by a standardized self-report measure, and as assessed by ratings of young people's descriptions of change at post-counseling interviews. Methods: Participants were 50 young people (13-16 years old) who had taken part in a trial of up to 10 weeks of school-based humanistic counseling. Our primary standardized measure was the Young Person's CORE (YP-CORE). To assess young people's experiences of counseling change, three independent raters scrutinized transcripts of post-counseling interviews, and scored levels of helpfulness on a 1 (Not at all helpful) to 10 (Extremely helpful) scale. Inter-rater reliabilities were 0.94 (Cronbach's Alpha) and 0.96 (McDonald's Omega). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore relationships between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures, i.e., satisfaction with counseling (ESQ) and the Goal-Based-Outcome Tool (GBO), and process measures, i.e., the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S) and the Barret Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI). Results: Multilevel analysis indicated that helpfulness ratings were not significantly associated with changes in YP-CORE scores. Analyzed categorically, 38% of those showing reliable improvement on the standardized measure were below the median for self-described helpfulness, and 47% of those not showing reliable change were at or above the median for self-described helpfulness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated closer correlations between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures (ESQ and GBO), and between helpfulness ratings and process measures (WAI-S and BLRI). Discussion: Our results raise questions about reliance on symptom change outcome measures for defining treatment success and failure, given their disparity with clients' own descriptions of the helpfulness of therapy. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Indexed as

assessmenthumanistic counselingparadoxical outcomequalitative interviewsself-report

Identifiers

PMID38895499
PMCPMC11184953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.