PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS
PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS
PSYCHOTHERAPY ENGAGERS VERSUS NON-ENGAGERS
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
treatment has begun (Gunzburger, Henggeler, & Watson, 1985). Other environmental<br />
factors such as lack of transportation and difficulty getting time off work or school (Beck<br />
et al., 1987; Cross & Warren, 1984) have surprisingly not had consistent relation to<br />
dropout (Barrett et al., 2008).<br />
Strategies for reducing psychotherapy dropout that were discussed in the Barrett<br />
et al. (2008) paper included: role induction (i.e. clarifying therapist and client roles),<br />
motivational interviewing, changing the treatment services model to better meet the<br />
changing demands of mental health treatment and managed care, therapist feedback, and<br />
strengthening the therapeutic relationship. Role induction (also referred to as pretherapy<br />
preparation) has been shown to improve client attendance (Walitzer, Dermen, & Connors,<br />
1999). 11 of the 16 studies reviewed by Walitzer et al. (1999) found that pretherapy<br />
training reduced rates of dropout. Techniques that clarify the therapist and client roles<br />
and give an overview of therapy have been found to improve attendance (Hoehn-Saric et<br />
al., 1964) and decrease dropout (Jacobs, Charles, Jacobs, Weinstein, & Mann, 1972).<br />
Brief motivational interviewing (brief MI; Rollnick & Heather, 1992), when<br />
integrated into the initial intake evaluation, has been related to nearly 50% reductions in<br />
dropout rates (Carroll, Libby, Sheehan, & Hyland, 2001), as discussed in the Barrett et al.<br />
(2008) paper. For example, Carroll et al. (2001) investigated the effects of brief MI<br />
intake evaluations on dropout. Dropouts for this study (Carroll et al., 2001) were<br />
individuals who did not begin treatment sessions after attending an initial intake<br />
evaluation. 60 individuals referred for a substance abuse evaluation by a child welfare<br />
worker were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: either a standard evaluation or<br />
an evaluation enhanced by brief MI techniques. The participants who received the brief<br />
13