Are we on the same page? A comparison of patients’ and clinicians’ opinions about the importance of CBT techniques

ABSTRACT

Clinicians often omit or underuse several techniques while delivering therapy. These omissions can be due to unconscious factors (e.g., clinician’s anxiety), or due to clinicians’ deliberate decisions (e.g., modifying therapy believing that such modifications are on the patients’ best interests). However, little is known about whether patients consider these modifications necessary. The main aim of this study was to explore the opinions about the important aspects of CBT according to both patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives. It also aimed to determine whether clinicians’ anxiety influenced such preferences. To achieve these aims, two groups of participants were approached—CBT clinicians (n = 83) and CBT patients (n = 167). An online survey with a list of techniques commonly used in CBT was developed for each group, who indicated the importance they attributed to the techniques. Additionally, clinicians completed an anxiety measure. Results indicated that clinicians valued all “change-oriented” techniques and several “interpersonal engagement” techniques more than the patients. The only technique preferred by patients was “relaxation”. Higher levels of clinician anxiety were associated with a lower preference for “behavioural experiments” and “exposure”. In conclusion, clinicians are encouraged to plan therapy in collaboration with the patient, as well as to discuss the rationale for the implemented techniques.

KEYWORDS:

• Cognitive behavioural therapy
• therapist drift
• patients’ opinions
• therapists’ opinions
• therapist factors

Data availability statement

The dataset associated to this research can be made available upon request to the main researcher.

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

Maria Elena Hernandez Hernandez was funded by the National Council of Science and Technology (Conacyt - Mexico), with the scholarship number 411170. The Conacyt had no role in the preparation of this manuscript.