The difficulties in conducting psychodynamic psychotherapy research are well documented. More recent meta‐analyses have demonstrated clear benefits; however, it has been argued that naturalistic studies are of more direct relevance to clinical services. UK National Health Services (NHS) provide psychodynamic psychotherapy within psychiatric settings for heterogeneous and generally complex patient populations. Much of the psychodynamic psychotherapy is provided by trainee psychiatrists who rarely have prior experience of delivering such therapy, but who are supervised by senior staff. Our naturalistic outcome study uses both quantitative and qualitative methodology, and describes a symptomatically and functionally impaired patient group (n = 384) deriving significant and clinically meaningful benefit from their therapy. Patient satisfaction and perceived change were positively correlated with each other and with symptomatic improvement. Patients' descriptive comments provided additional rich information, most commonly describing a positive outcome for therapy and the belief that therapy was too short. This study complements more formal research showing that psychodynamic psychotherapy is efficacious in outpatient settings.
AimsOur Trust increased Balint group provision, relocating virtually for psychiatry doctors to explore the emotional impact of clinical practice and doctor-patient relationships, during unfamiliar challenges of the pandemic. This unique context allowed comparison of multiple virtual and face-to-face (F2F) Balint-type group experiences for participants and facilitators.MethodIn March 2020, existing core trainee (CT) year 1 and 2, higher trainee (ST) and consultant Balint groups became virtual, with new CT3 and Speciality Doctor and Associate Specialist (SAS) virtual Balint groups established.All 57 participants and 5 facilitators were sent an anonymous electronic survey to retrospectively rate virtual Balint (March-August 2020) and their preceding F2F Balint group (suggesting September 2019-February 2020) experience.ResultThe response rate was 89% for participants (51 respondents) and 100% for facilitators (5 respondents).For group participants, 90% (virtual) and 78% (F2F) agreed or strongly agreed that Balint group provided an opportunity to explore challenging aspects of clinical work. 76% (virtual) and 71% (F2F) agreed or strongly agreed that it made them feel more supported. Almost 50% agreed or strongly agreed that virtual and F2F Balint group helped work feel less stressful. Both ratings and free-text feedback emphasised virtual Balint attendance being easier.Facilitators rated virtual and F2F formats similarly highly with regards to exploring difficult doctor-patient interactions, richness of discussions and their enjoyment. Facilitators felt virtual attendance was easier but more draining, with more difficult adherence to Balint group etiquette and boundaries.82% of participants and 75% of facilitators agreed or strongly agreed that virtual format made them more likely to attend future Balint groups. The rich pool of free-text comments received were predominantly positive, whilst noting challenges during virtual Balint in remaining present, with more distractions (for participants) and additional difficulty accessing group dynamics (for facilitators).ConclusionParticipant and facilitator responses indicate Balint-type groups being professionally and clinically beneficial across different psychiatrist grades, and promoting clinician wellbeing when both F2F and virtual during pandemic-related restrictions. Facilitator ratings (unlike participants) suggested specific virtual process challenges such as feeling more drained, perhaps in part due to technical application issues around this emerging format.Both participants and facilitators reported attendance being easier when virtual. Although some suggested returning to F2F post-COVID, more preferred to continue virtually or utilise a blended format. This was particularly for non-CT groups where geographical challenges (e.g. region-wide ST Balint) or competing clinical demands (e.g. consultant/SAS Balint) made regular commitment and attendance more difficult.
Aims and method To survey nationwide opportunities for Balint-type and reflective support group participation and psychotherapy training among doctors classified as Specialty Doctors and Associate Specialists in psychiatry (‘SAS psychiatrists’) and the professional benefits and barriers to access. Results Approximately 9% of SAS psychiatrists responded, from all UK regions. A minority reported participating in a Balint-type group (27.3%) or reflective practice/support group (30.9%), and only 6.5% were not interested in participating. Although 44.8% planned to see a psychotherapy case, most reported barriers, particularly time constraints, job plans and lack of support. The 22.1% who reported already gaining psychotherapy case experience reported many benefits, including becoming a better listener (84.8%), more empathetic (81.2%), enjoying work more (78.8%) and overall becoming a better psychiatrist (90.9%). Clinical implications The reported interest in Balint group and psychotherapy training opportunities exceeded existing provision; psychotherapy case experience benefited professional development and self-reported clinical capabilities. Healthcare trusts and boards need to consider more actively supporting SAS psychotherapy training and reflective practice.
Background Current literature highlights peer and psychological support as important for staff well-being, to cope in pandemic conditions. Aims Our organisation increased Balint group provision during unfamiliar challenges of COVID-19. This unique context allowed comparison of multiple new virtual and face-to-face (F2F) Balint experiences. Method Following March 2020 lockdown, four existing Balint groups for doctors in psychiatry moved to online, with two new groups established virtually in specific response to the pandemic. All participants and facilitators of these virtual Balint groups were sent a questionnaire to anonymously rate their experience and provide qualitative feedback. Results The response rate was 89% for participants (51 respondents) and 100% for facilitators (5 respondents). Participants found both formats supportive; providing a space to talk, feel heard and validated, helping work feel less stressful. Participant ratings slightly favoured F2F, but some prefer to continue virtually. Facilitators felt virtual attendance was easier, but adherence to conventional Balint group structure and format more difficult. Conclusions Participant and facilitator responses demonstrate Balint groups, when both F2F and virtual, were experienced as a source of support and connectivity, being valued across different psychiatry grades. Notable virtual benefits seem to be limited to more practical aspects, that is, time, flexibility, logistics and accessibility. There are expressed challenges of virtual Balint; however, some participants still favour this format going forward. Our findings endorse virtual Balint as a welcomed means of emotional well-being, peer support and developing psychotherapeutic competencies during pandemic-related restrictions, with potential to extend beyond COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.