Goldsmith Lucy P, Dunn Graham, Bentall Richard P, Lewis Shôn W, Wearden Alison J
Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 14;10(12):e0144623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144623. eCollection 2015.
Few studies have examined therapist effects and therapeutic alliance (TA) in treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Therapist effects are the differences in outcomes achieved by different therapists. TA is the quality of the bond and level of agreement regarding the goals and tasks of therapy. Prior research suffers the methodological problem that the allocation of therapist was not randomized, meaning therapist effects may be confounded with selection effects. We used data from a randomized controlled treatment trial of 296 people with CFS. The trial compared pragmatic rehabilitation (PR), a nurse led, home based self-help treatment, a counselling-based treatment called supportive listening (SL), with general practitioner treatment as usual. Therapist allocation was randomized. Primary outcome measures, fatigue and physical functioning were assessed blind to treatment allocation. TA was measured in the PR and SL arms. Regression models allowing for interactions were used to examine relationships between (i) therapist and therapeutic alliance, and (ii) therapist and average treatment effect (the difference in mean outcomes between different treatment conditions). We found no therapist effects. We found no relationship between TA and the average treatment effect of a therapist. One therapist formed stronger alliances when delivering PR compared to when delivering SL (effect size 0.76, SE 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.41). In these therapies for CFS, TA does not influence symptomatic outcome. The lack of significant therapist effects on outcome may result from the trial's rigorous quality control, or random therapist allocation, eliminating selection effects. Further research is needed.
ISRCTN74156610.
很少有研究考察慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)治疗中的治疗师效应和治疗联盟(TA)。治疗师效应是指不同治疗师所取得的治疗结果差异。TA是关于治疗目标和任务的关系质量及共识水平。先前研究存在方法学问题,即治疗师的分配并非随机,这意味着治疗师效应可能与选择效应混淆。我们使用了一项针对296名CFS患者的随机对照治疗试验的数据。该试验比较了实用康复治疗(PR),一种由护士主导的居家自助治疗、一种名为支持性倾听(SL)的基于咨询的治疗,以及全科医生常规治疗。治疗师分配是随机的。主要结局指标,即疲劳和身体功能,在对治疗分配不知情的情况下进行评估。在PR组和SL组中测量TA。使用允许交互作用的回归模型来检验(i)治疗师与治疗联盟之间的关系,以及(ii)治疗师与平均治疗效果(不同治疗条件下平均结局的差异)之间的关系。我们未发现治疗师效应。我们发现TA与治疗师的平均治疗效果之间没有关系。一名治疗师在提供PR治疗时比提供SL治疗时形成了更强的联盟(效应量0.76,标准误0.33,95%置信区间0.11至1.41)。在这些CFS治疗中,TA不影响症状结局。治疗师对结局缺乏显著效应可能是由于试验严格的质量控制或随机的治疗师分配,消除了选择效应。需要进一步研究。
ISRCTN74156610