Attitudes About Informed Consent: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of UK Psychotherapy Trainees

Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland

Background

In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries.

Methods

We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions.

Results

Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches.

Conclusions

Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

Informed consent for psychotherapy: Ethical illusion or clinical reality? A survey about psychotherapists' attitudes and practices in Germany

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess clinicians' attitudes and their current clinical practices regarding informed consent for psychotherapy.

METHOD

A convenience sample of N = 530 clinicians in Germany (n = 418 licensed psychotherapists and n = 112 postgraduate psychotherapy trainees) took part in an online survey.

RESULTS

Most clinicians (84%) reported obtaining informed consent for psychotherapy in their daily routine. However, many psychotherapists felt unsure about satisfactorily fulfilling the legal (63%) and ethical obligations (52%). The two most frequently reported components of information disclosure related to explaining the terms and conditions of psychotherapy (96%) and the psychotherapeutic approach (91%). Providing information about mechanisms of psychotherapy (33%) and the role of expectations (30%) were least practiced. One in five psychotherapists reported not informing clients about potential risks and side effects. A considerable proportion reported concern about inducing anxiety in patients by disclosing information about risks and side effects (52%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although obtaining informed consent for psychotherapy seems to be the rule rather than the exception in clinical practice, the quality of its implementation in terms of legal, ethical and clinical demands remains questionable. Training psychotherapists in providing comprehensive informed consent enables informed decision-making and might have a positive influence on treatment expectations and outcomes.

Informed consent in psychotherapy: a survey on attitudes among psychotherapists in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

The legal and ethical guidelines of psychological professional associations stipulate that informed consent by patients is an essential prerequisite for psychotherapy. Despite this awareness of the importance of informed consent, there is little empirical evidence on what psychotherapists' attitudes towards informed consent are and how informed consent is implemented in psychotherapeutic practice.

METHODS

155 psychotherapists in Switzerland completed an online survey assessing their attitudes regarding informed consent.

RESULTS

Among the surveyed psychotherapists, there was a high consensus on important information that should be communicated to patients in the context of informed consent. Almost all psychotherapists rated confidentiality and its exemptions (95%) and self-determined decision-making (97%) as important. The importance to disclose information regarding fees and the empirical effectiveness of the provided treatment, were both seen as important by more than 80% of participants. The disclosure of personal information about the therapist was rated as important by 60%. Other aspects, which are not direct components of informed consent but rather overarching goals, were also evaluated rather homogeneously: self-determined decision making of the patient was rated as important by almost all of the surveyed psychotherapists (97%). The following components were also judged as important by a majority of the participants: promotion of hope (80%) and discussion of treatment goals (93%). Most psychotherapists described the implementation of informed consent as an ongoing process, rather than a one-time event during the first session of therapy. Therapists' age, postgraduate training, treated patient group, and setting influenced attitudes towards informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows that informed consent is perceived by psychotherapists as both a challenge and a resource. The implementation of informed consent in psychotherapy requires further research from a clinical and ethical perspective.

Therapeutic interventions in in-person and remote psychotherapy: Survey with psychotherapists and patients experiencing in-person and remote psychotherapy during COVID-19

Objective

First, to investigate how psychotherapists and patients experience the change from in‐person to remote psychotherapy or vice versa during COVID‐19 regarding the therapeutic interventions used. Second, to explore the influence of therapeutic orientations on therapeutic interventions in in‐person versus remote psychotherapy.

Method

Psychotherapists (N = 217) from Austria were recruited, who in turn recruited their patients (N = 133). The therapeutic orientation of the therapists was psychodynamic (22.6%), humanistic (46.1%), systemic (20.7%) or behavioural (10.6%). All the data were collected remotely via online surveys. Therapists and patients completed two versions of the ‘Multitheoretical List of Therapeutic Interventions’ (MULTI‐30) (version 1: in‐person; version 2: remote) to investigate differences between in‐person and remote psychotherapy in the following therapeutic interventions: psychodynamic, common factors, person‐centred, process‐experiential, interpersonal, cognitive, behavioural and dialectical‐behavioural.

Results

Therapists rated all examined therapeutic interventions as more typical for in‐person than for remote psychotherapy. For patients, three therapeutic interventions (psychodynamic, process‐experiential, cognitive interventions) were more typical for in‐person than for remote psychotherapy after correcting for multiple testing. For two therapeutic interventions (behavioural, dialectical‐behavioural), differences between the four therapeutic orientations were more consistent for in‐person than for remote psychotherapy.

Conclusions

Therapeutic interventions differed between in‐person and remote psychotherapy and differences between therapeutic orientations in behavioural‐oriented interventions become indistinct in remote psychotherapy.

Psychotherapy is still failing patients: revisiting informed consent-a response to Garson Leder

Compared with mainstream medicine and complementary and alternative therapies, the practice of psychotherapy has enjoyed a relative pass when it comes to ethical evaluation. Therefore, contributions to the, although slowly growing, body of literature on psychotherapy ethics are to be welcomed. In his paper 'Psychotherapy, placebos, and informed consent', Garson Leder takes issue with what he calls the 'go open' project in psychotherapy ethics-the idea that the so-called 'common factors' in therapy should be disclosed to prospective patients. Although Leder does not give a detailed list, the common factors include therapist characteristics (empathy, positive regard, positive expectations that therapy will succeed), patient characteristics (expectations about therapy including its plausibility, confidence in the therapist), and the working alliance (how well both therapist and patient work well together during sessions). He argues that the project advocating disclosure of these factors is flawed on two grounds: (1) that information about common factors is not necessary for informed consent; and (2) clarity about specific mechanisms of change in therapy is consistent with 'many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy'. There are multiple serious problems with Leder's critique of the recent literature, including how he represents the contours of the debate, which I list, and address in this response.