The Difficult Task of Assessing and Interpreting Treatment Deterioration: An Evidence-Based Case Study

Literature on outcome assessment suggests that 35-40% of patients in randomized control trials terminate treatment with unchanged or higher levels of symptomatology. The goal of the present study was to shed light on this phenomenon and the factors accounting for it using a single case study design...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in psychology Vol. 10; p. 1180
Main Authors Bloch-Elkouby, Sarah, Eubanks, Catherine F, Knopf, Lauren, Gorman, Bernard S, Muran, J Christopher
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 03.07.2019
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Literature on outcome assessment suggests that 35-40% of patients in randomized control trials terminate treatment with unchanged or higher levels of symptomatology. The goal of the present study was to shed light on this phenomenon and the factors accounting for it using a single case study design that investigates the process and outcome of a treatment conducted within a non-randomized clinical trial comparing a cognitive behavioral and a brief relational treatment. The condition of L., a Caucasian man undergoing cognitive-behavioral therapy in a large metropolitan research program, was classified as deteriorating using the Reliable Change Index for the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). Therapeutic process and outcome were examined using quantitative and qualitative methods rated by several sources. Analysis showed that the treatment was delivered skillfully, and that despite initial difficulties, a strong alliance eventually developed between the patient and the therapist whose perspectives on the outcome of therapy nevertheless diverged. The patient's satisfaction with treatment was high, and he believed his deterioration was caused by its termination. Results suggest that the deterioration was not caused by a negative process or a faulty delivery of the therapy. Several explanations were discussed in the context of the literature.
Bibliography:This article was submitted to Psychology for Clinical Settings, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
Edited by: Julian A. Rubel, University of Giessen, Germany
Reviewed by: Danilo Moggia, University of Barcelona, Spain; Johannes C. Ehrenthal, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany
ISSN:1664-1078
1664-1078
DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01180