Can the Clinician–Researcher Gap be Bridged? Experiences from a Randomized Clinical Trial in Analytic/Dynamic Group Psychotherapy

Abstract

This article describes how four seasoned clinicians and group analysts working in public mental health services, experience their participation in a randomized trial of short-term versus long-term analytic group psychotherapy (20 or 80 sessions). The design makes it possible to integrate the research with regular clinical practice, and participation gives the institutions the opportunity to fulfil obligations of doing research, that are imposed on the Community Mental Health Centres. The experiences are mainly described from the clinicians' position, but some comments from the research director are included. The collaboration across approximately five years is found to be interesting and rewarding. Based on the assumption that further steps are made to strengthen and develop the qualitative aspects of such projects, the clinicians recommend such collaboration as a feasible and useful way to build and maintain a bridge across the gap that too often seems to separate researchers and clinicians. This is assumed to be profitable for everyone involved, not least the patients.

Personality disorder moderates outcome in short‐ and long‐term group analytic psychotherapy: A randomized clinical trial

“…Although randomization is the 'gold standard' from a methodological point of view, in some respects it may represent a drawback from a clinical point of view. Therapists were not allowed to select their own patients and 'compose' their groups in the way they usually would, which may restrict the generalizability of our findings to some extent (Horneland et al, 2012). On the other hand, therapists were not allowed to exclude patients included in the study, which may in fact increase generalizability, and might reduce the magnitude of treatment effects (and thereby reduce the likelihood of overestimating them).…”

Group therapy in public mental health services: approaches, patients and group therapists

“…This requires a greater use of structured research designs and a more systematic use of outcome and process measures in everyday clinical practice. The best way to implement this is to establish clinician-researcher networks that can cooperate on theoretical and practical issues (Horneland et al 2012). We hope that our cooperation with professionals on different institutional levels and preliminary findings can stimulate local initiatives, as well as future larger scale evaluation and research projects in the public mental health services.…”

Relating Theory – Clinical and Forensic Applications

“…Horneland et al 2011 ;Leu et al 2010 ;Newton and Levinson 1973 ;Ogrodniczuk et al 2010 ) about its impact on the analytic level. Th e concern is that completing a self-report measure as an examination of relational dynamics and group process could move members and the group as a whole from the deeper unconscious working level to the cognitive level, potentially negatively impacting on the multiple transferences, multiple projective identifi cations, projections, and splitting inherent within the group modality and central to its theoretical orientation.…”