A dual perspective on first-session therapeutic alliance: strong predictor of youth mental health and addiction treatment outcome

42Citations
Citations of this article
91Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We investigated the potential role of first-session therapeutic alliance ratings to serve as an early marker of treatment outcome in youth mental health and addiction treatment. The present study is among the first to incorporate both a youths’ and a therapists’ perspective of the therapeutic alliance in order to maximize predictive value of the alliance for treatment outcome. One hundred and twenty-seven adolescents participated in a multi-site prospective naturalistic clinical cohort study, with assessments at baseline and at 4 months post-baseline. Main outcome measure was favorable or unfavorable treatment outcome status at 4-month follow-up. Early therapeutic alliance had a medium and robust association with treatment outcome for youth’ (b = 1.29) and therapist’ (b = 1.12) perspectives and treatment setting. Based on the two alliance perspectives four subgroups were distinguished. Incorporating the alliance-ratings from both perspectives provided a stronger predictor of treatment outcome than using one perspective. Youth with a strong alliance according to both perspectives had an eightfold odds of favorable treatment outcome compared with youth with a weak alliance according to both perspectives. The association between therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in youth mental health and addiction treatment may be substantially stronger than earlier assumed when both a youths’ and therapists’ perspective on alliance is considered.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

van Benthem, P., Spijkerman, R., Blanken, P., Kleinjan, M., Vermeiren, R. R. J. M., & Hendriks, V. M. (2020). A dual perspective on first-session therapeutic alliance: strong predictor of youth mental health and addiction treatment outcome. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(11), 1593–1601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01503-w

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free