Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40698456›Full record

ArticleResearch in psychotherapy (Milano)2025

Factors of treatment success in psychotherapy: a within-therapist analysis of early session processes.

Yan Zhu, Mark J Hilsenroth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in psychotherapy (Milano), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Yan ZhuDerner School of Psychology, Adelphi University, New York.
Mark J HilsenrothDerner School of Psychology, Adelphi University, New York.ORCID 0000-0003-0321-8825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While psychotherapy is generally effective, outcomes can vary significantly across patients, even when treated by the same therapist. This study employed a mixed-methods design to examine early indicators of treatment success by analyzing contrasting outcomes within individual therapists' caseloads. Treatment success was determined by patients achieving a clinically significant change on the Brief Symptom Inventory's Global Severity Index (BSI-GSI). The Reliable Change Index (RCI) was used to calculate these changes, adjusting to account for measurement error and regression to the mean. Unsuccessful cases are defined as those with no reliable change or deterioration. Data from six patients treated by three psychodynamic therapists were analyzed (each therapist having one successful and one unsuccessful case). Quantitative analyses of psychological assessments and early treatment measures, along with qualitative analyses of third session transcripts, were conducted. In successful cases, the patients reported higher levels of depression, interpersonal distress, and social avoidance/anxiety, but also greater personal insight prior to the treatment. Patients in successful cases also rated lower session smoothness compared to their therapists' ratings early in treatment. These divergent views are likely due to higher ratings of therapists' exploration of uncomfortable feelings in the successful treatment sessions. In addition, these external raters observed that in the successful cases, therapists employed higher overall levels of psychodynamic-interpersonal techniques during the third session than in their unsuccessful cases. Results highlight the importance of how initial severity and emotional expression in the early stage of psychotherapy may help lay the foundation for successful treatment outcomes.

Identifiers

PMID40698456
PMCPMC12522568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.