Transference interpretation and psychotherapy outcome: a systematic review of a no-consensus relationship.

IF 1.6 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Meltem Yilmaz, Kutlu Kağan Türkarslan, Ludovica Zanini, Dilara Hasdemir, Grazia Fernanda Spitoni, Vittorio Lingiardi
{"title":"Transference interpretation and psychotherapy outcome: a systematic review of a no-consensus relationship.","authors":"Meltem Yilmaz, Kutlu Kağan Türkarslan, Ludovica Zanini, Dilara Hasdemir, Grazia Fernanda Spitoni, Vittorio Lingiardi","doi":"10.4081/ripppo.2024.744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite its well-established importance in psychoanalytic theory, there is a scarcity of empirical evidence on the relationship between a therapist's transference interpretation (TI) and therapeutic outcome. The current scientific literature shows no consensus on the existence and nature of such an association. Therefore, the present study aimed to systematically review the literature on the link between TI and outcomes in psychodynamic psychotherapies. The American Psychological Association PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and the Web of Science Core Collection were selected as the primary databases for the literature search. Studies were included if they measured the frequency/ concentration of TI in psychodynamic psychotherapy [e.g., transference focused psychotherapy (TFP), supportive-expressive therapy] or compared a treatment group (e.g., high in TI and TFP) with a control group (e.g., low in TI supportive therapy) in an adult population with psychiatric symptoms. Out of 825 retrieved abstracts, 25 articles (21 studies) were included in the final synthesis. 13 out of 21 (62%) studies showed a significant improvement in at least one therapy outcome measure following the use of TI. The present systematic review also revealed high heterogeneity across studies in terms of TI measurement, outcome assessment (e.g., psychiatric symptoms, dynamic change, interpersonal functioning, therapeutic alliance), study design (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, naturalistic), patient population (e.g., anxiety disorders, personality disorders), and types of treatment (e.g., TFP, supportive-expressive therapy), preventing researchers from asserting solid conclusions. The results strongly highlight the urgent need for highquality research to understand which types of patients, how, and when TIs could be effective throughout the therapy process.</p>","PeriodicalId":44262,"journal":{"name":"Research in Psychotherapy-Psychopathology Process and Outcome","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11116935/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Psychotherapy-Psychopathology Process and Outcome","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2024.744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite its well-established importance in psychoanalytic theory, there is a scarcity of empirical evidence on the relationship between a therapist's transference interpretation (TI) and therapeutic outcome. The current scientific literature shows no consensus on the existence and nature of such an association. Therefore, the present study aimed to systematically review the literature on the link between TI and outcomes in psychodynamic psychotherapies. The American Psychological Association PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and the Web of Science Core Collection were selected as the primary databases for the literature search. Studies were included if they measured the frequency/ concentration of TI in psychodynamic psychotherapy [e.g., transference focused psychotherapy (TFP), supportive-expressive therapy] or compared a treatment group (e.g., high in TI and TFP) with a control group (e.g., low in TI supportive therapy) in an adult population with psychiatric symptoms. Out of 825 retrieved abstracts, 25 articles (21 studies) were included in the final synthesis. 13 out of 21 (62%) studies showed a significant improvement in at least one therapy outcome measure following the use of TI. The present systematic review also revealed high heterogeneity across studies in terms of TI measurement, outcome assessment (e.g., psychiatric symptoms, dynamic change, interpersonal functioning, therapeutic alliance), study design (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, naturalistic), patient population (e.g., anxiety disorders, personality disorders), and types of treatment (e.g., TFP, supportive-expressive therapy), preventing researchers from asserting solid conclusions. The results strongly highlight the urgent need for highquality research to understand which types of patients, how, and when TIs could be effective throughout the therapy process.

移情解释与心理治疗结果:对无共识关系的系统回顾。
尽管移情解释(TI)在精神分析理论中的重要性已得到公认,但关于治疗师的移情解释(TI)与治疗结果之间关系的实证证据却很少。目前的科学文献没有就这种关联的存在和性质达成共识。因此,本研究旨在系统回顾心理动力学心理疗法中移情解释与治疗效果之间关系的相关文献。本研究选择了美国心理学会 PsycInfo、MEDLINE 和 Web of Science Core Collection 作为文献检索的主要数据库。如果研究测量了心理动力学心理疗法(如移情集中心理疗法(TFP)、支持-表达疗法)中TI的频率/浓度,或在有精神症状的成年人群中比较了治疗组(如TI和TFP较高)和对照组(如TI支持疗法较低),则被纳入研究。在检索到的 825 篇摘要中,有 25 篇文章(21 项研究)被纳入最终综述。21 项研究中有 13 项(62%)显示,在使用 TI 后,至少一项治疗结果指标有显著改善。本系统综述还揭示了各研究在 TI 测量、结果评估(如精神症状、动态变化、人际功能、治疗联盟)、研究设计(如实验、准实验、自然主义)、患者人群(如焦虑症、人格障碍)和治疗类型(如 TFP、支持-表达疗法)等方面的高度异质性,这使得研究人员无法得出可靠的结论。研究结果有力地说明,迫切需要开展高质量的研究,以了解在整个治疗过程中,TI 对哪些类型的患者、如何以及何时有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
18.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信