Outcomes of Systemic/Strategic Team Consultation: I. Overview and One‐Month Results

This research focused on exploring the experience of fifteen families who attended a first session of systemic family therapy, with reflecting team feedback being delivered in two different formats. In the first the interviewer consulted with the reflecting team alone after the therapy session while the family took a break and then provided feedback directly to the family. In the second the interviewer and family exchanged rooms straight after the session and the reflecting team provided feedback in conversation with each other. Families in both conditions of systemic family therapy described how the presence of a team led to a heightening of their emotion in session, a factor that served to effect a change in family interaction. For families in the first condition the consultation break reduced these intense emotions and provided a unique opportunity to continue independent discussions outside the therapy room. In contrast, those in the second condition reported that their experience was more exciting but it made information retention difficult. For this reason, the use of a therapeutic letter with this group was a crucial aspect of follow‐up intervention. Practitioner points Families see systemic family therapy reflecting teams as helpful, providing an opportunity for new conversations, perspectives and behaviour to emerge. These benefits can be maximized by providing a detailed descriptions of the process beforehand, minimizing phone calls from the reflecting team to the interviewer and providing a break between interview and feedback. When using Andersen's (1991) model, following‐up sessions with a therapeutic letter can enhance the retention of information.

Section: Research To Datementioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of two systemic family therapy reflecting team interventions

Mitchell¹,

Rhodes

Wallis³

et al. 2013

“…Study l : R. Green and M. Herget (1989a;19896) Design. I n this comparative outcome study, eleven therapists, using a variety of models of family therapy, were asked to select two ongoing family therapy cases which had reached therapeutic impasses.…”

Section: Review Of Ten Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Milan systemic family therapy: a review of ten empirical investigations

Carr¹

1991

Ten empirical investigations of Milan Family Therapy (MFT) are reviewed in this paper. The studies include both single and comparative group outcome trials; investigations of therapeutic process; clinical audit and consumer satisfaction surveys. Substantive findings and methodological issues are discussed in the light of family therapy and individual psychotherapy research generally. Findings indicate that MFT may lead to symptomatic change in two‐thirds to three‐quarters of cases and to systemic change in half the treated cases. Engagement of fathers may be important for positive outcome. Technical aspects of MFT, such as the use of screens and teams, may lead to client dissatisfaction in some cases. MFT‐based consultation may be effective in resolving therapeutic impasses. Coupled with short‐term residential placement, MFT may reduce the risk and complexity of cases as rated by referring social workers.

“…The effectiveness of such consultations was assessed using a self‐administered scale. After one month, the families who had attended the family consultation session seemed more convinced that their objectives had been achieved than the families who had continued with their usual therapy (Green and Herget, 1989a). A three‐ and five‐year follow‐up showed that the same families had succeeded in sustaining what had been achieved (Green and Herget, 1989b, 1991).…”

Section: Empirical Studies Of Milan Systemic Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Expressed emotion and Milan systemic intervention: a pilot study on families of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia

Bertrando¹,

Cecchin

Clerici

et al. 2006

This article presents the results of a pilot study carried out on families of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (high‐frequency users of psychiatric services) using a standardized version of systemic family intervention based on the Milan Approach (‘Circular Interview’). We used expressed emotion (EE) to compare and assess two homogeneous samples of families, a treatment group (n = 10) and a control group (n = 8). We found that families participating in circular interviews showed a reduction in criticism, while 30% of their members with a diagnosis of schizophrenia relapsed. Families not receiving treatment showed no changes in EE levels, while 62.5% of their members with a diagnosis of schizophrenia relapsed. Although the difference in relapse rates is not statistically significant, these results justify further studies on the use of nondirective systemic intervention with families of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.