Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2025

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Hyperscanning Study in Psychological Counseling
Published on: January 17, 2025
Effects of talking about side effects versus not talking about side effects on the therapeutic alliance: A controlled
Beate Muschalla1, Julia Müller1, Anja Grocholewski1
1Department of Psychotherapy and Diagnostics, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Introduction:
Side effects of psychotherapy are common. Therapists and patients must recognize negative developments to take countermeasure. Therapists can be reluctant to talk about problems of their own treatment. The hypothesis could be that talking about side effects can impair the therapeutic relationship.
Methods:
We examined whether a systematic monitoring and discussion of side effects has a negative effect on therapeutic alliance. Intervention group (IG) therapists and patients filled in the UE-PT scale (unwanted events in the view of patient and therapists scale) and discussed their mutual ratings (IG, n = 20). As unwanted events can be independent of therapy, but also be treatment-related side effects, the UE-PT-scale first asks for UE and then for their relation to the ongoing treatment. In the control group (CG, n = 16) treatment was done without any special side effect monitoring. Both groups filled in the Scale for Therapeutic Alliance (STA-R).
Results:
IG-therapists reported various unwanted events in 100% and patients in 85% of cases: complexity of problems, burdensome or overdemanding therapy, problems with work, and symptom deterioration. Any side effect was reported in 90% by therapists and in 65% by patients. Most frequent side effects were demoralization and worsening of symptoms. IG therapists observed an improvement of global therapeutic alliance in STA-R (M = 3.08 to M = 3.31, p = 0.024, interaction effect in ANOVA with two groups and measurement repetition), and reduced patient fear (M = 1.21 to M = 0.91, p = 0.012). IG patients perceived improvement in bond (M = 3.45 to M = 3.70, p = 0.045). In the CG no comparable changes were seen (alliance M = 2.97 to M = 3.00; patient fear M = 1.20 to M = 1.36; patient-perceived bond M = 3.41 to M = 3.36).
Conclusion:
The initial hypothesis must be rejected. The results suggest that monitoring, and discussion of side effects can even improve the therapeutic alliance. Therapists must not be afraid that this will endanger the therapeutic process. The use of a standardized instrument like the UE-PT-scale seems helpful.
More Related Videos
08:22Remotely Supervised Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: An Update on Safety and Tolerability
Published on: October 7, 2017
04:53A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Elements Crucial for Effective Psychotherapy
The Therapeutic Alliance
The therapeutic alliance refers to the relationship between the therapist and the client. The alliance strengthens when the therapist and the client engage in a nurturing, supportive, trusting, empathetic, and respectful relationship, improving therapeutic outcomes. Therapists must monitor this relationship...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Drug Therapy
Antianxiety Medications
Blinding