Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39132665›Full record

ArticleOpen research Europe2023

Therapeutic relationship elements and therapy session outcomes: Protocol for a longitudinal study of the patient's perspective.

Alberto Stefana, Paolo Fusar-Poli, Eduard Vieta, Eric A Youngstrom

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open research Europe, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Alberto StefanaDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4807-7184
Paolo Fusar-PoliDepartment of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy.
Eduard VietaBipolar and Depressive Disorders Unit, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, CIBERSAM, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, 08028, Spain.
Eric A YoungstromHelping Give Away Psychological Science, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is a growing recognition of the key role of the therapeutic relationship in the outcomes of psychotherapy. However, current understanding of its specific components, their interplay and related patient-therapist dynamics is limited. Objective: (a) To validate two self-report measures to assess subjective affective reactions of patients toward their psychotherapists during specific therapy sessions, and (b) to explore the relationships and dynamics among four elements of the therapeutic relationship: patient reactions toward the therapist, working alliance, alliance ruptures and repairs, and the real relationship. Methods: This study uses a nonrandomized, two-time point longitudinal design. The target population is adult patients currently engaged in individual psychotherapy for heterogeneous mental conditions. Participants are recruited through two online recruitment platforms: Research for Me and ResearchMatch. Data collection involves administering two surveys through the Qualtrics online survey platform. The baseline survey assesses information about the most recent therapy session and the preceding week, while the follow-up survey collects data on the subsequent therapy session and the days leading up to it. Discussion: This research offers three main contributions: (a) it furthers evidence-based assessment in psychotherapy by creating and validating two novel, succinct self-report tools; (b) it enhances theoretical understanding within therapeutic relationship research by exploring the significant impact of patients' perceptions of relationship elements on session outcomes variability; and (c) it will identify therapeutic relationship elements that can either enhance or hinder the overall relationship quality and session outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The results will be published in indexed peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant psychology and psychiatry conferences.

Indexed as

adult patientspatient’s perspectivepsychotherapyscale validationsession outcomeTherapeutic relationship

Identifiers

PMID39132665
PMCPMC11310652

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.