Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:44:02.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brief Prescriptive Therapy in Two-plus-one Sessions: Initial Cases from the Clinic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Michael Barkham
Michael Barkham
Affiliation:
MRC/ESRC Social and Applied Psychology Unit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper presents the rationale for, and implementation of, a brief form of cognitive-behavioural (termed Prescriptive) therapy based on both behavioural and cognitive traditions. Clients are seen for two sessions 1 week apart followed by a third session 3 months later. The model, termed 2 + 1 Prescriptive psychotherapy, is derived from both clinical and research bases, and is an attempt to implement a planned brief form of therapy in response to service deliver needs. The essential components of the model are presented together with outcome data from three initial clients' treatment in this model. In addition, one of these cases is presented as a clinical case study. The model is evaluated according to criteria of therapeutic effort, research parameters, and clinical mechanisms. The limitations and potenial of the model are presented.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 161 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84, 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkham, M. and Shapiro, D. A. (1988). Psychotherapy in 2 + 1 sessions: A research protocol. Social and Applied Psychology Unit Memo No. 891. University of Sheffield, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C. and Nelson, R. O. (1984). The Scientist-Practitioner: Research and Accountability in Clinical and Education Settings. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Derogartis, L. R., Lipman, R. S. and Covi, L. (1973). The SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale—preliminary report. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 9, 13–27.Google Scholar
Fennell, M. J. V. and Teasdale, J. D. (1987). Cognitive therapy for depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research 11, 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, J. D. (1959). The dynamics of the psychotherapeutic relationship. Psychiatry 22, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, J. D. (1981). Therapeutic components shared by all psychotherapies. In The Master Lecture Series: Vol. 1: Psychotherapy Research and Behaviour Change, Harvey, J. H. and Parkes, M. M.. pp. 9–37. Washington D.C.: APA.Google Scholar
Howard, K. I., Kopta, S. M., Krause, M. S. and Orlinsky, D. E. (1986). The dose-effect relationship in psychotherapy. American Psychologist 41, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, D. H. and Gelso, C. J. (1980). The aeffectiveness of time limits in counseling and psychotherapy: A critical review. The Counseling Psychologist 9, 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorion, R. F. (1974). Patient and therapist variables in the treatment of low income patients. Psychological Bulletin 81, 344–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLean, P. (1982). Behavioural therapy: Theory and research. In Short-Term Psychotherapies for Depression: Behavioral, Interpersonal, Cognitive, and psychodynamic Approaches, Rush, A. J. (Ed.), pp. 19–49. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Newman, F. L. and Howard, K. I. (1986). Therapeutic effort, treatment outcome, and national health policy. American Psychologist 41, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orlinsky, D. (1987). Patients' experiences of therapy between sessions: A link between process and outcome.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Psychotherapy Research,Ravenscar.Google Scholar
Parsonson, B. S. and Baer, D. M. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data. In Single Subject Research: Strategies for Evaluating Change, Kratochwill, T. R. (Ed.), pp. 101–165. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safran, J. D.Vallis, T. M.Segal, Z. V. and Shaw, B. F. (1986). Assessment of core cognitive processes in cognitive therapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research 10 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, D. A. and Firth, J. (1987). Prescriptive vs. Exploratory psychotherapy: Outcomes of the Sheffield Psychotherapy Project. British Journal of Psychiatry 151, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlien, J. M., Mosak, H. H. and Dreikurs, R. (1962). Effects of time limits: A comparison of two psychotherapies. Journal of Counseling Psychology 9, 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B. (1980). Measurement of the impact of psychotherapy sessions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 48, 176–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, W. B., Shapiro, D. A. and Firth-Cozens, J. (1988). Do sessions of different treatments have different impacts? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, W. B. and Snow, J. S. (1984). Dimensions of psychotherapy session impact across sessions and across clients. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 23, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taube, C. A., Burns, B. J. and Kessler, L. (1984). Patients of psychiatrists and psychologists in office-based practice: 1980. American Psychologist 39, 1435–1447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teasdale, J. D. (1985). Psychological treatments for depression: How do they work? Behaviour Research and Therapy 23, 157–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolberg, L. R. (1980). Handbook of Short-Term Psychotherapy. New York: Thieme Stratton Inc.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.