Evaluating the UE‐ATR Checklist: Nuanced Attribution in Unsuccessful Therapeutic Outcomes
Fuente:
Wiley Open Access
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867006442560552960 |
|---|---|
| author | Sanne T. L. Houben Anna C. P. Backus Suzanne Hermans Harald Merckelbach Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald |
| author_facet | Sanne T. L. Houben Anna C. P. Backus Suzanne Hermans Harald Merckelbach Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald Sanne T. L. Houben Anna C. P. Backus Suzanne Hermans Harald Merckelbach Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Evaluating the UE‐ATR Checklist: Nuanced Attribution in Unsuccessful Therapeutic Outcomes Sanne T. L. Houben Anna C. P. Backus Suzanne Hermans Harald Merckelbach Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy ABSTRACT Unwanted events in psychotherapy can hinder treatment, yet clinicians overlook them and tend to attribute treatment stagnation mainly to patient‐related factors. The unwanted events–adverse treatment reaction (UE‐ATR) checklist was developed to encourage a more balanced reflection on treatment difficulties, but its effectiveness remains unclear. This study investigated whether the UE‐ATR checklist enables clinicians to allocate treatment difficulties in a more nuanced way across various contributing factors. Clinicians and psychology students ( N = 104) were randomly assigned to either use the UE‐ATR ( n = 59) or not ( n = 45) while reviewing a case vignette of a patient who experienced unwanted events during therapy and treatment stagnation. They allocated responsibility for suboptimal treatment outcome across five factors: the patient, the therapist, the treatment method, the patient's pathology or other circumstances. Attribution was analysed using the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), where higher scores indicate a monocausal and lower scores reflect a multicausal view. No significant differences were found between the conditions. Although most users found the checklist clinically useful, this positive perception did not lead to a more balanced perspective on the causes of unwanted events. Although the UE‐ATR checklist can support clinical reflection, additional training is necessary to maximize its effectiveness. 10.1002/cpp.70091 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/cpp.70091 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1002_cpp_70091 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Evaluating the UE‐ATR Checklist: Nuanced Attribution in Unsuccessful Therapeutic Outcomes Sanne T. L. Houben Anna C. P. Backus Suzanne Hermans Harald Merckelbach Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy Evaluating the UE‐ATR Checklist: Nuanced Attribution in Unsuccessful Therapeutic Outcomes Sanne T. L. Houben Anna C. P. Backus Suzanne Hermans Harald Merckelbach Brechje Dandachi‐FitzGerald Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy ABSTRACT Unwanted events in psychotherapy can hinder treatment, yet clinicians overlook them and tend to attribute treatment stagnation mainly to patient‐related factors. The unwanted events–adverse treatment reaction (UE‐ATR) checklist was developed to encourage a more balanced reflection on treatment difficulties, but its effectiveness remains unclear. This study investigated whether the UE‐ATR checklist enables clinicians to allocate treatment difficulties in a more nuanced way across various contributing factors. Clinicians and psychology students ( N = 104) were randomly assigned to either use the UE‐ATR ( n = 59) or not ( n = 45) while reviewing a case vignette of a patient who experienced unwanted events during therapy and treatment stagnation. They allocated responsibility for suboptimal treatment outcome across five factors: the patient, the therapist, the treatment method, the patient's pathology or other circumstances. Attribution was analysed using the Herfindahl–Hirschman index (HHI), where higher scores indicate a monocausal and lower scores reflect a multicausal view. No significant differences were found between the conditions. Although most users found the checklist clinically useful, this positive perception did not lead to a more balanced perspective on the causes of unwanted events. Although the UE‐ATR checklist can support clinical reflection, additional training is necessary to maximize its effectiveness. 10.1002/cpp.70091 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| title | Evaluating the UE‐ATR Checklist: Nuanced Attribution in Unsuccessful Therapeutic Outcomes |
| topic | Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy |
| url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.70091 |