Hindering events in psychotherapy: A retrospective account from the client's perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hindering events in the therapeutic process have been associated with client dissatisfaction, disagreements in therapy, and premature withdrawal from the therapeutic process. However, hindering events in therapy have not been extensively researched from the client's perspective and lack subjective details on how these events are experienced in therapy. Aims This study explored how hindering events are experienced by clients and their influence on the therapeutic process and outcome from the client's perspective. Method Nine individuals who previously attended therapy and experienced hindering events were interviewed using an in‐depth semi‐structured interview protocol created by the authors. Data were analysed using structured thematic analysis. Results Four major themes emerged, each containing themes and sub‐themes to further expand on client experiences: (a) identified hindering events (felt mistreated by therapist, distracted/inattentive therapist, perceived clinical mistakes, tensions from the management of the therapeutic frame); (b) subjective experience of the event (negative emotional experience, making sense of the event, parallel personal dynamics); (c) response to the event (client response/decision to continue or end therapy, reaction to discontinuing therapy); and (d) handling/addressing the event (not handled/addressed, handled/addressed, interest in handling/addressing event, reasons given for not addressing/handling event). Results from this study contribute to the further understanding of client experiences of hindering events that occur in therapy as well as how these events influence therapeutic processes and outcomes. Conclusion The study adds nuance to the scholarly work that informs client experiences of negative events in therapy. Implications for therapeutic organisations, therapists/counsellors, and educators are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".