Unexpressed Wishes and Unmet Needs: a Mixed Methods Study of Youth Negative Experiences in Psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unlike best practice guidelines for detecting and addressing medication side effects, there are no widely adopted guidelines to help therapists identify and address the possible negative effects of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is a first-line evidence-based intervention for youth depression and anxiety, but the literature contains few studies of psychotherapy’s potential negative effects, and even fewer direct youth reports of their negative psychotherapy experiences. A mixed-methods study design was used to study youth with self-reported depression and/or anxiety and measure negative experiences associated with psychotherapy treatment. Youth were recruited from a larger study. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from 45 youth with psychotherapy experience. Study design was informed by feedback from youth with lived experience of mental health challenges. Youth completed standardized measures of psychopathology, treatment effects, and detailed qualitative interviews. All youth experienced at least one negative effect during psychotherapy, and 30 youth (66.7%) attributed a negative effect as ‘caused’ by psychotherapy. While this attribution did not significantly differ based on severity of underlying current psychopathology, effect size estimates suggest moderate to large group differences regarding internalizing issues and baseline coping skills. Four major qualitative themes were identified from the interviews, summarizing the negative experiences of psychotherapy: (1) Barriers Experienced in Psychotherapy; (2) Concerns about Therapist; (3) Concerns about Therapy Itself; (4) Negative Experiences as a part of the Therapeutic Process. No youth raised any of these concerns directly with their therapists. These data support the need for validated, systematic assessment of psychotherapy’s negative effects among youth, with the aim of improving engagement and treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".