Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Effects of talking about side effects versus not talking about side effects on the therapeutic alliance: a controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Side effects of psychotherapy are common. Therapists and patients must recognize negative developments to take countermeasure. Therapists can be reluctant to talk about problems of their own treatment. The hypothesis could be that talking about side effects can impair the therapeutic relationship.

METHODS: We examined whether a systematic monitoring and discussion of side effects has a negative effect on therapeutic alliance. Intervention group therapists and patients filled in the UE-PT scale (Unwanted Events in the view of Patient and Therapists scale) and discussed their mutual ratings (intervention group IG, n=20). As unwanted events can be independent of therapy, but also be treatment-related side effects, the UE-PT-scale first asks for UE and then for their relation to the ongoing treatment. In the control group (CG, n=16) treatment was done without any special side effect monitoring. Both groups filled in the Scale for Therapeutic Alliance (STA-R).

RESULTS: IG-therapists reported various unwanted events in 100% and patients in 85% of cases: complexity of problems, burdensome or overdemanding therapy, problems with work, and symptom deterioration. Any side effect was reported in 90% by therapists and in 65% by patients. Most frequent side effects were demoralization and worsening of symptoms. IG therapists observed an improvement of global therapeutic alliance in STA-R (M=3.08 to M=3.31, p=.024, interaction effect in ANOVA with two groups and measurement repetition), and reduced patient fear (M=1.21 to M=0.91, p=.012). IG patients perceived improvement in bond (M=3.45 to M=3.70, p=.045). In the CG no comparable changes were seen (alliance M=2.97 to M=3.00; patient fear M=1.20 to M=1.36; patient-perceived bond M=3.41 to M=3.36).

CONCLUSION: The initial hypothesis must be rejected. The results suggest that monitoring, and discussion of side effects can even improve the therapeutic alliance. Therapists must not be afraid that this will endanger the therapeutic process. The use of a standardized instrument like the UE-PT-scale seems helpful. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Full text links

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Group 7SearchHeart failure treatmentPapersTopicsCollectionsEffects of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure Importance: Only 1 class of glucose-lowering agents-sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors-has been reported to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events primarily by reducingSeptember 1, 2017: JAMA CardiologyAssociations of albuminuria in patients with chronic heart failure: findings in the ALiskiren Observation of heart Failure Treatment study.CONCLUSIONS: Increased UACR is common in patients with heart failure, including non-diabetics. Urinary albumin creatininineJul, 2011: European Journal of Heart FailureRandomized Controlled TrialEffects of Liraglutide on Clinical Stability Among Patients With Advanced Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Review

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app