What Works for Whom: Patients' Psychological Resources and Vulnerabilities as Common and Specific Predictors of Working Alliance in Different Psychotherapies

Abstract

Background: Across different types of psychotherapy, one of the most robust predictors of better therapeutic outcomes is a good working alliance between patient and therapist. Yet there is little comparative research on whether particular patients more likely achieve a better alliance in certain treatments which represent particular therapeutic approaches or durations. Methods: 326 patients suffering from depressive and/or anxiety disorder were randomized into two short-term (solution-focused or psychodynamic) and one long-term (psychodynamic) therapy models. Treatments lasted ~7 and 36 months, respectively. Before randomization, patients were assessed with the interview-based Suitability for Psychotherapy Scale and filled Childhood Family Atmosphere and Life Orientation Test questionnaires. Patients filled Working Alliance Inventory after 3rd therapy session and at end of treatment; the long-term therapy patients, additionally, at 7 months' time point. Linear regression models were used. Results: Greater psychological resources (e.g., capacity for self-reflection, affect regulation, flexible interaction) had little effect on alliance during the course of the short-term therapies. However, they did predict better working alliances at end of long-term as opposed to short-term therapy. Childhood adversities impacted alliances already at 7 months. Conclusions: Although patients with certain qualities achieve better alliances in long-term as opposed to short-term therapies, apparently the theoretical orientation of therapy makes little difference. For patients with childhood adversities, differences between long-term (psychodynamic) treatment vs. various brief therapy models may be particularly salient.