心理治疗中来访者对治疗和伤害的叙述:一种定性方法

IF 1.2 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Seyed Vahid Tavallaei, Samaneh Najarpourian, Yaser Rastegar
{"title":"心理治疗中来访者对治疗和伤害的叙述:一种定性方法","authors":"Seyed Vahid Tavallaei,&nbsp;Samaneh Najarpourian,&nbsp;Yaser Rastegar","doi":"10.1002/capr.12855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>For decades, researchers have acknowledged the potential for negative effects in psychotherapy, highlighting the need for further investigation. However, a clear understanding of the nature and definition of harm within this context has remained elusive. Efforts were made to clarify terminology such as ‘side effects’ and ‘negative effects’, but a consensus on the extent and definition of harm has continued to evade the field. Notably, existing research on negative effects has often prioritised expert and therapist perspectives, neglecting the crucial insights offered by the client's subjective experience of harm.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>This study adopted an exploratory approach, employing qualitative research methods. To uncover and illuminate past experiences of harm within the therapeutic context, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants (15 female, 6 male) who reported perceiving their psychotherapy sessions as harmful. Data analysis utilised the theoretical framework of Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory approach, facilitated by the MAXQDA2020 software.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The study results offered a comprehensive examination of factors contributing to client-perceived harm in psychotherapy, categorised as both client-related and therapist-related. Additionally, the definition of harm was explored through the lens of emotional and cognitive experiences. The client's reaction to perceived harm (submission, avoidance and compensation) and the therapist's course of action vs. the client's reaction (corrective and justifying) respectively, can cause consequences (strengthening the therapeutic alliance and the client's healing or individual and interpersonal impacts) from the client's perspective.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>A significant finding was the lack of attention paid to the interpersonal nature of psychotherapy in past understandings of harm. The results highlight the potential for harm in any therapeutic relationship, regardless of the therapist. This potential appears to be particularly heightened when therapists display a lack of responsiveness to clients' internal experiences, especially through justifying comments in response to client-reported negative experiences within the therapeutic relationship. Based on these findings, the study offers clinical recommendations for therapists to enhance their responsiveness and mitigate potential harm.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":46997,"journal":{"name":"Counselling & Psychotherapy Research","volume":"25 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clients' narratives of healing and harm in psychotherapy: A qualitative method\",\"authors\":\"Seyed Vahid Tavallaei,&nbsp;Samaneh Najarpourian,&nbsp;Yaser Rastegar\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/capr.12855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>For decades, researchers have acknowledged the potential for negative effects in psychotherapy, highlighting the need for further investigation. However, a clear understanding of the nature and definition of harm within this context has remained elusive. Efforts were made to clarify terminology such as ‘side effects’ and ‘negative effects’, but a consensus on the extent and definition of harm has continued to evade the field. Notably, existing research on negative effects has often prioritised expert and therapist perspectives, neglecting the crucial insights offered by the client's subjective experience of harm.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study adopted an exploratory approach, employing qualitative research methods. To uncover and illuminate past experiences of harm within the therapeutic context, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants (15 female, 6 male) who reported perceiving their psychotherapy sessions as harmful. Data analysis utilised the theoretical framework of Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory approach, facilitated by the MAXQDA2020 software.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study results offered a comprehensive examination of factors contributing to client-perceived harm in psychotherapy, categorised as both client-related and therapist-related. Additionally, the definition of harm was explored through the lens of emotional and cognitive experiences. The client's reaction to perceived harm (submission, avoidance and compensation) and the therapist's course of action vs. the client's reaction (corrective and justifying) respectively, can cause consequences (strengthening the therapeutic alliance and the client's healing or individual and interpersonal impacts) from the client's perspective.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>A significant finding was the lack of attention paid to the interpersonal nature of psychotherapy in past understandings of harm. The results highlight the potential for harm in any therapeutic relationship, regardless of the therapist. This potential appears to be particularly heightened when therapists display a lack of responsiveness to clients' internal experiences, especially through justifying comments in response to client-reported negative experiences within the therapeutic relationship. Based on these findings, the study offers clinical recommendations for therapists to enhance their responsiveness and mitigate potential harm.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Counselling & Psychotherapy Research\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Counselling & Psychotherapy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/capr.12855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Counselling & Psychotherapy Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/capr.12855","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

摘要

目的 几十年来,研究人员一直承认心理治疗可能会产生负面影响,并强调了进一步研究的必要性。然而,在这一背景下,对伤害的性质和定义的清晰认识仍然难以实现。人们努力澄清 "副作用 "和 "负面影响 "等术语,但对伤害的程度和定义仍未达成共识。值得注意的是,关于负面影响的现有研究往往优先考虑专家和治疗师的观点,而忽视了客户对伤害的主观体验所提供的重要见解。 研究方法 本研究采用探索性方法,运用定性研究方法。为了揭示和阐明过去在治疗过程中受到伤害的经历,研究人员对 21 名参与者(15 名女性,6 名男性)进行了半结构式访谈,这些参与者均表示自己在心理治疗过程中受到过伤害。数据分析采用了斯特劳斯和科尔宾的基础理论方法的理论框架,并使用 MAXQDA2020 软件进行辅助。 结果 研究结果全面考察了心理治疗中导致客户感知伤害的因素,这些因素分为与客户相关的和与治疗师相关的两类。此外,研究还从情感和认知体验的角度探讨了伤害的定义。从当事人的角度来看,当事人对所感知到的伤害的反应(顺从、回避和补偿)以及治疗师的行动方案与当事人的反应(纠正和辩解)分别会造成后果(加强治疗联盟和当事人的愈合或个人和人际影响)。 结论 一个重要的发现是,在过去对伤害的理解中,对心理治疗的人际性质缺乏关注。研究结果凸显了在任何治疗关系中,无论治疗师是谁,都有可能造成伤害。当治疗师对求助者的内在体验缺乏回应时,尤其是通过对求助者报告的治疗关系中的负面体验进行合理化评论时,这种潜在的伤害似乎就会加剧。基于这些发现,本研究为治疗师提供了临床建议,以提高他们的反应能力并减轻潜在的伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clients' narratives of healing and harm in psychotherapy: A qualitative method

Purpose

For decades, researchers have acknowledged the potential for negative effects in psychotherapy, highlighting the need for further investigation. However, a clear understanding of the nature and definition of harm within this context has remained elusive. Efforts were made to clarify terminology such as ‘side effects’ and ‘negative effects’, but a consensus on the extent and definition of harm has continued to evade the field. Notably, existing research on negative effects has often prioritised expert and therapist perspectives, neglecting the crucial insights offered by the client's subjective experience of harm.

Method

This study adopted an exploratory approach, employing qualitative research methods. To uncover and illuminate past experiences of harm within the therapeutic context, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 participants (15 female, 6 male) who reported perceiving their psychotherapy sessions as harmful. Data analysis utilised the theoretical framework of Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory approach, facilitated by the MAXQDA2020 software.

Results

The study results offered a comprehensive examination of factors contributing to client-perceived harm in psychotherapy, categorised as both client-related and therapist-related. Additionally, the definition of harm was explored through the lens of emotional and cognitive experiences. The client's reaction to perceived harm (submission, avoidance and compensation) and the therapist's course of action vs. the client's reaction (corrective and justifying) respectively, can cause consequences (strengthening the therapeutic alliance and the client's healing or individual and interpersonal impacts) from the client's perspective.

Conclusion

A significant finding was the lack of attention paid to the interpersonal nature of psychotherapy in past understandings of harm. The results highlight the potential for harm in any therapeutic relationship, regardless of the therapist. This potential appears to be particularly heightened when therapists display a lack of responsiveness to clients' internal experiences, especially through justifying comments in response to client-reported negative experiences within the therapeutic relationship. Based on these findings, the study offers clinical recommendations for therapists to enhance their responsiveness and mitigate potential harm.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Counselling & Psychotherapy Research
Counselling & Psychotherapy Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Counselling and Psychotherapy Research is an innovative international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to linking research with practice. Pluralist in orientation, the journal recognises the value of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods strategies of inquiry and aims to promote high-quality, ethical research that informs and develops counselling and psychotherapy practice. CPR is a journal of the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, promoting reflexive research strongly linked to practice. The journal has its own website: www.cprjournal.com. The aim of this site is to further develop links between counselling and psychotherapy research and practice by offering accessible information about both the specific contents of each issue of CPR, as well as wider developments in counselling and psychotherapy research. The aims are to ensure that research remains relevant to practice, and for practice to continue to inform research development.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信