© 2007 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Staff and patient perspectives on unmet need and therapeutic alliance in community mental health services
University Hospital of Psychiatry, Unit of Community Psychiatry, Bern, Switzerland
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
Department of Psychiatry, Queen Mary, University of London and Newham Centre for Mental Health, London
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK
Correspondence: Dr Ulrich Junghan, University Hospital of Psychiatry, Unit of Community Psychiatry, Laupenstrasse 49, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland. Email: junghan{at}spk.unibe.ch
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Background Therapeutic alliance between clinicians and their patients is important in community mental healthcare. It is unclear whether providing effective interventions influences therapeutic alliance.
Aims To assess the impact of meeting previously unmet mental health needs on the therapeutic alliance between patients and clinicians.
Method Secondary analysis of data from a longitudinal study assessing 101 patients and paired staff.
Results Patient-rated unmet need was negatively associated with patient-rated and staff-rated therapeutic alliance. Staff-rated unmet need was positively associated with patient-rated therapeutic alliance only. Reducing patient-rated unmet need increased patient-rated but not staff-rated therapeutic alliance, even when controlling for other variables. Reducing staff-rated unmet need increased staff-rated but not patient-rated therapeutic alliance, but the effect became insignificant when controlling for other variables.
Conclusions Patient-rated therapeutic alliance will be maximised by focusing assessment and interventions on patient-rated rather than staff-rated unmet need.
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Therapeutic alliance between patients and clinical staff is a central component of mental healthcare (Priebe et al, 2005), and better therapeutic alliance has been found to be associated with improved outcome (Neale & Rosenheck, 1995; Martin et al, 2000; Couture et al, 2006). Research into determinants of therapeutic alliance has mainly focused on psychotherapy. The preliminary evidence about the impact of community mental healthcare on subjective perception of therapeutic alliance suggests that the patient's perception of therapeutic alliance is related to feeling that their subjective needs are being met (Calsyn et al, 2006). A standardised assessment of mental health needs therefore offers one possibility to explore the complex patient–clinician interactions involved in therapeutic alliance (Slade et al, 2006). Modelling the longitudinal relationship between meeting previously unmet mental health needs and changes in therapeutic alliance may generate clinically relevant insights into how to improve the alliance.
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Aims and hypotheses
The aim of this study was to assess the cross-sectional and longitudinal impact of unmet mental health needs on therapeutic alliance, from the perspective of both patients and clinical staff. Two hypotheses were tested, each separately in relation to staff and patient perceptions of unmet need and therapeutic alliance. Hypothesis 1 (cross-sectional association) was that better therapeutic alliance would be associated with fewer unmet mental health needs. Hypothesis 2 (longitudinal association) was that a reduction of unmet needs would precede an increase in therapeutic alliance.
Design
The study involved secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled
trial (ISRCTN16971059) of routine outcome assessment and feedback to patients
and staff (Slade et al,
2006).
Sample and setting
The setting was eight community mental health teams (CMHTs) in Croydon,
South London. A representative random sample of 160 patients from the 3500
using adult mental health services were stratified by CMHT, diagnosis,
ethnicity, age and gender. One staff member who was working most closely with
each patient was then identified (n=74, from all main professional
groups, including 43 psychiatric nurses and 14 social workers). Data were
collected between 2001 and 2003, and for the current study come from the
intervention group only (n=101).
Measures
Unmet needs were assessed using the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short
Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS; Slade et
al, 1999) which assesses needs in 22 health and social
domains and has separate staff (CANSAS–S) and patient (CANSAS–P)
versions. Each domain is rated as either an unmet need (current serious
problem, regardless of any help given), met need (no/moderate problem because
of help given), no need, or not known. The unmet need score is the total
number of unmet needs (range 0–22, with a high score being worse).
Therapeutic alliance was assessed using the Helping Alliance Scale (HAS), which consists of five items in the staff version (HAS–S) and six items in the patient version (HAS–P; Priebe & Gruyters, 1993); higher scores indicate a better therapeutic alliance. The items cover basic aspects of interpersonal relationships between patients and staff as well as aspects of their judgement as to the degree of common understanding and the capability to provide or receive the necessary help respectively.
The Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG; Slade et al, 2000) is a seven-item staff-rated measure of severity of mental health problems (range 0–24, with a low score being better).
Procedures
Patients and staff were interviewed at baseline by a researcher (including
round 1 data). Patients and staff were then sent postal questionnaires each
month for 5 months (rounds 2–6). The patient questionnaire included
HAS–P and CANSAS–P (primary outcome), and the staff questionnaire
included HAS–S and CANSAS–S. Overall postal response rates were
79% for patients and 67% for staff. Feedback on the data was sent (identically
to staff and patients) after round 3 and round 6. Follow-up assessments were
completed by the researcher 1 month after the second feedback (round 7) for 93
patients in the intervention group and 92 staff. The intervention was shown to
reduce admissions but not to improve CANSAS–P unmet needs
(Slade et al,
2006).
Analysis
Both hypotheses were tested using multilevel random regression models
(Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal,
2005). These include a random effect for each individual to
control for the correlation structure due to non-independence of repeated
assessments. The resulting model gives a between-individuals effect (to
investigate cross-sectional association) and a within-individual effect (to
investigate longitudinal association).
Models were fitted with either staff-rated or patient-rated therapeutic alliance as the dependent variable. The models were developed in two stages. In stage 1, the independent variables were baseline level and rating for each round of patient-rated and staff-rated unmet needs. In stage 2, the independent variables were mean patient-rated and staff-rated unmet needs over all assessments, 1-month change in patient-rated or staff-rated unmet needs (e.g. +1 meaning one more unmet need than in the previous month) and months since baseline (to investigate time trends). As a sensitivity analysis, the same independent variables as in stage 2 were used with the addition of the other unmet need change score (e.g. patient-rated unmet need change for the staff-rated therapeutic alliance model), age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, psychosis v. other diagnosis, TAG score and CMHT.
The effect of missing data was explored by fitting logistic regressions to a `missing' variable, comparing missing measures on unmet needs over all assessment waves with the non-missing measurements. The robustness of models was investigated by visual inspections of the distribution of random effects. Robust estimates of the standard errors of the regression coefficients were used to estimate P values and confidence intervals. All analyses were undertaken using Stata version 9.0 for Windows.
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The relationship between therapeutic alliance and unmet mental health needs was assessed in 101 patients and paired clinical staff. Characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 1 Clinical and socio-demographic characteristics of patients
(n=101)
|
Cross-sectional association
Table 2 shows the
patient-rated and the staff-rated therapeutic alliance models.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 2 Mixed-effects regression models of the cross-sectional impact of unmet
needs on therapeutic alliance
|
Low patient-rated unmet need was associated with higher staff-rated and patient-rated therapeutic alliance. In addition, low staff-rated unmet need was associated with lower patient-rated therapeutic alliance.
Longitudinal association
Table 3 shows models of the
longitudinal impact of a change in unmet needs on therapeutic alliance.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
Table 3 Mixed-effects regression models of the longitudinal effects of changing
unmet needs on therapeutic alliance
|
Higher mean levels of unmet needs were associated with lower therapeutic
alliance in both models, consistent with the cross-sectional association
already shown. In addition, a decrease in the number of patient-rated unmet
needs was associated with higher patient-rated therapeutic alliance in the
month following this change, and a decrease in the number of staff-rated unmet
needs was associated with higher staff-rated therapeutic alliance in the
following month. There was a significant improvement in both staff-rated and
patient-rated therapeutic alliance over time. In all models the proportion of
unexplained variance (
) attributable to individual differences was high
(ranging from 49 to 78%).
Sensitivity analyses
In a sensitivity analysis, each model was estimated using both unmet need
change scores and including clinical and demographic variables (n=77
for staff model, n=71 for patient model). The resulting models were
similar. Change in staff-rated unmet need did not have an impact on
patient-rated therapeutic alliance (B=–0.12, P=0.96)
and change in patient-rated unmet need did not have an impact on staff-rated
therapeutic alliance (B=–0.02, P=0.73). Improvement in
patient-rated unmet need remained associated with better patient-rated
therapeutic alliance (B=–40, P=0.03) but the previous
association between staff-rated unmet need change and staff-rated therapeutic
alliance became insignificant (B=–0.23, P=0.06). The
only clinical or demographic variable with a significant effect was CMHT which
had an effect on staff-rated therapeutic alliance. Two of the eight CMHTs had
a significant tendency towards more negative ratings for therapeutic alliance.
The impact of CMHT was investigated using a three-level random mixed model,
with patients nested in CMHTs and repeated measures nested in individual
patients. The resulting model (not shown) was similar to that in
Table 2. Fitting a logistic
regression model to a `missing' variable did not show any systematic
differences between the characteristics of those with missing assessments and
those included in our analyses, except that one out of eight CMHTs had fewer
missing assessments.
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This study investigated the relationship between patient and staff perceptions of unmet need and therapeutic alliance. Lower patient-rated unmet need was cross-sectionally associated with higher staff-rated and patient-rated therapeutic alliance, whereas lower staff-rated unmet need was only associated with lower (not higher) patient-rated therapeutic alliance. Longitudinally, a decrease in patient-rated unmet need was associated with higher patient-rated therapeutic alliance, a relationship which remained when controlling for other needs, clinical and demographic variables. A decrease in staff-rated unmet need was also associated with higher staff-rated therapeutic alliance, but the relationship became insignificant when other variables were controlled for.
Therapeutic alliance in community mental health settings
The relationship between therapeutic alliance and a range of mental health
outcomes has been extensively researched. Improved therapeutic alliance has
been repeatedly associated with improved outcome. The available evidence has
two limitations when applied in community mental health settings, which the
current study addresses.
First, most studies have been in psychotherapy settings (e.g. Martin et al, 2000). Routine community mental healthcare differs from psychotherapy in several ways, including an emphasis on meeting both health and social needs, multi-professional and multi-staff input, and providing practical help and social support. Studies investigating therapeutic alliance between a patient and a psychotherapist may not, therefore, generalise to community mental health settings (Priebe & McCabe, 2006).
Second, existing studies have not used a repeated-measures design, which limits the ability to understand the relationship between different process and outcome domains (e.g. Neale & Rosenheck, 1995). There are complex determinants of therapeutic alliance in community mental healthcare (e.g. Priebe & McCabe, 2006). For example, qualitative studies identify influences, such as being heard, having meaningful choices between treatment options and being actively helped, as all associated with better therapeutic alliance (McCabe et al, 2002; Ware et al, 2004). If the investigation of therapeutic alliance in community mental health services is to progress, then empirically-based conceptual models are needed.
Preliminary model of unmet need and therapeutic alliance
Bordin (1979) proposed that
therapeutic alliance has three components: goals, bonds and tasks. High
therapeutic alliance is present where there is agreement on the goals of
therapy, strong patient–therapist bonds (e.g. trust, respect) and
positive views about the methods of working (e.g. therapist's skills,
patients' perception of the therapist's ability to help them). Unmet need
provides candidate proxy measures for two elements of Bordin's tripartite
framework: identifying an unmet need is a proxy for therapeutic goals and
meeting previously unmet needs is a proxy measure for task effectiveness.
Therefore, the relationship between unmet need and therapeutic alliance is
worth exploring.
Empirical evidence indicates the need to consider staff and patient assessments separately. Views about the level of therapeutic alliance differ between staff and patient (Bale et al, 2006). Similarly, disagreement exists between individual staff–patient pairs in relation to the number and nature of unmet needs (e.g. Gibbons et al, 2005; Cleary et al, 2006; Fleury et al, 2006). Therefore, both perspectives need to be investigated when exploring the relationship between therapeutic alliance and unmet needs.
The current study provides the first evidence of a cross-sectional and longitudinal association between unmet need and therapeutic alliance. This is the first empirical study to identify an approach to improving therapeutic alliance in routine community care. Meeting unmet needs (especially patient-rated needs) was followed by improvements in therapeutic alliance. The results of this study are not compatible with an explanation that the relationship between unmet need and therapeutic alliance arises from an unknown mediator, such as treatment adherence. First, the relationship is stable across the different models. Second, the reverse model (testing whether change in therapeutic alliance predicts unmet need) did not fit the data.
Is there evidence that meeting needs improves outcome? Reducing unmet needs in people with severe mental illness has been shown to be associated with improved quality of life, and this relationship is strongest for patient-rated (rather than staff-rated) unmet need (Lasalvia et al, 2005; Slade et al, 2005). These findings have led to the suggestion that need may be `the mediating link between subjective quality of life and all its influences (rather than just psychiatric influences)' (Slade et al, 2004: p. 188). Our results suggest a more refined model, in which the relationship between patient-rated unmet need and quality of life is mediated by improved therapeutic alliance. This model is consistent with studies in other areas of medicine. For example, Howard et al (2006) showed that the relationship between interpersonal problems and depression in people with multiple sclerosis was mediated by therapeutic alliance.
Strengths of the study
A strength of the present study is its longitudinal repeated-measures
design which allows investigation of the temporal relationship between
therapeutic alliance and unmet needs over time, which is not possible with
cross-sectional or pre–post assessments
(Pearl, 2000). Our results
showed that there is a relationship between unmet need and therapeutic
alliance, and that change in patient-rated unmet need precedes change in
therapeutic alliance. The nature of this relationship could be investigated in
a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an intervention to meet previously
unmet needs. Supplementing the trial with repeated measures of therapeutic
alliance before and after the intervention–akin to an interrupted time
series (Gilbody & Whitty,
2002)–would allow investigation of whether the relationship
between unmet need and therapeutic alliance is causal
(Bollen, 1989), and
strengthening evidence on approaches to improving the alliance.
A second strength of the study is in representativeness. The recruitment strategy for the study ensured participants were representative of those using local CMHTs and the sample setting was chosen to be demographically typical for England (Slade et al, 2006). Similarly, the majority of the data were collected by post rather than by interview. Results are therefore likely to be of general relevance.
Limitations of the study
Three limitations can be identified. First, data came from an RCT which was
investigating the use of monthly assessments by staff and patients plus
3-monthly feedback (including unmet need and therapeutic alliance) to staff
and patients. It is possible that the intervention influenced the ratings of
unmet need and therapeutic alliance. However, in the RCT there were no
significant differences between the intervention and control groups in
therapeutic alliance or unmet needs at follow-up. Furthermore, a
cross-sectional inverse relationship between unmet needs and therapeutic
alliance was also present when we analysed the baseline and follow-up
assessments of the control group (n=59; B=–0.92,
P < 0.01 for patients; B=–0.71, P <
0.01 for staff). There was, therefore, no evidence that the relationship
between unmet need and therapeutic alliance was influenced by the
intervention.
Second, we found a systematic difference between therapeutic alliance in the CMHTs and, although it may reflect different case-load compositions, it is a potential source of bias. However, including the CMHT as a variable in the model did not fundamentally affect the pattern of relationship between unmet needs and therapeutic alliance.
Third, unmet needs only explain a moderate portion of the variance in therapeutic alliance. Meeting 1 patient-rated unmet need of the 22 assessed was followed by a change of half a point (scale 1–6) in patient-rated therapeutic alliance. The high levels of unexplained variance attributable to individual differences in the random regression models indicate that there are other important individual-level determinants of staff-rated and patient-rated therapeutic alliance that were not considered in this study. Therefore, future research on therapeutic alliance in community mental healthcare should also explore other determinants, such as symptomatology, level of agreement on need, and characteristics of staff and CMHT.
Implications
This study found that meeting patient-rated unmet needs leads to better
therapeutic alliance. A reduction of one patient-rated unmet need resulted in
an improvement of patient-rated therapeutic alliance by half a point (scale
range 0–10), and hence meeting five unmet needs (range 0–22) will
lead to a clinically significant improvement (HAS–P s.d.=2.07, assuming
reliability of 0.8; Jacobsen & Truax,
1991). Therefore, if one goal of care is to maximise therapeutic
alliance and hence engagement, then treatment planning should be at least
partly driven by patient rather than staff perspectives on need.
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
- Bale, R., Catty, J., Watt, H., et al
(2006) Measures of the therapeutic relationship in severe
psychotic illness: a comparison of two scales. International
Journal of Social Psychiatry, 52, 256
-266.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Bollen, K. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley.
- Bordin, E. (1979) The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252 -260.[CrossRef]
- Calsyn, R. J., Klinkenberg, W. D., Morse, G. A., et al (2006) Predictors of the working alliance in community treatment. Community Mental Health Journal, 42, 161 -175.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Cleary, M., Friedman, A., Hunt, G., et al (2006) Patient and carer perceptions of need and associations with care-giving burden in an integrated mental health service. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 41, 208 -214.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Couture, M. S., Roberts, D. L., Penn, D. L., et al (2006) Do baseline characteristics predict the therapeutic alliance in the treatment of schizophrenia. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 94, 10 -14.
- Fleury, M., Grenier, G. & Lesage, A. (2006) Agreement between staff and service users concerning the clientele's mental health needs: a Quebec study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 281 -286.[Medline]
- Gibbons, C., Bédard, M. & Mack, G. (2005) Comparison of client and mental health worker assessment of needs and unmet needs. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 32, 95 -104.[CrossRef]
- Gilbody, S. & Whitty, P. (2002) Improving
the delivery and organisation of mental health services: beyond the
conventional randomised controlled trial. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 180, 13
-18.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Howard, I., Turner, R., Olkin, R., et al (2006) Therapeutic alliance mediates the relationship between interpersonal problems and depression outcome in a cohort of multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1197 -1204.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Jacobsen, N. & Truax, P. (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12 -19.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Lasalvia, A., Bonetto, C., Malchiodi, F., et al (2005) Listening to patients' needs to improve their subjective quality of life. Psychological Medicine, 35, 1-11.[CrossRef]
- Martin, D., Garske, J. & Davis, M. (2000) Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438 -450.[CrossRef][Medline]
- McCabe, R., Heath, C., Burns, T., et al
(2002) Engagement of patients with psychosis in the
consultation: conversation analytic study. BMJ,
325, 1148
-1151.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Neale, M. & Rosenheck, R. (1995)
Therapeutic alliance and outcome in a VA intensive case management program.
Psychiatric Services,
46, 719
-721.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Pearl, J. (2000) Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference. Cambridge University Press.
- Priebe, S. S. & McCabe, R. (2006) The therapeutic relationship in psychiatric settings. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplementum, 429, 69 -72.[Medline]
- Priebe, S., Watts, J., Chase, M., et al
(2005) Processes of disengagement and engagement in assertive
outreach patients: qualitative study. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 187, 438
-443.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Priebe, S. & Gruyters, T. (1993) The role of the helping alliance in community care – a prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 552 -557.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Rabe-Hesketh, S. & Skrondal, A. (2005) A Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling using Stata. Stata Press.
- Slade, M., Loftus, L., Phelan, M., et al (1999) The Camberwell Assessment of Need. Gaskell.
- Slade, M., Powell, R., Rosen, A., et al (2000) Threshold Assessment Grid (TAG): the development of a valid and brief scale to assess the severity of mental illness. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 78-85.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Slade, M., Leese, M., Ruggeri, M., et al (2004) Does meeting needs improve quality of life? Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 73, 183 -189.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Slade, M., Leese, M., Cahill, S., et al
(2005) Patient-rated mental health needs and quality of life
improvement. British Journal of Psychiatry,
187, 256
-261.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Slade, M., McCrone, P., Kuipers, E., et al
(2006) Use of standardised outcome measures in adult mental
health services: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 189, 330
-336.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Ware, N., Tugenberg, T. & Dickey, B. (2004)
Practitioner relationships and quality of care in low-income persons with
serious mental illness. Psychiatric Services,
55, 555
-559.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Related articles in BJP:
- Highlights of this issue
- Kimberlie Dean
BJP 2007 191: A21.[Full Text]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||