Enhancing Psychotherapy Outcomes by Encouraging Patients to Regularly Self-Monitor, Reflect on, and Share Their Affective Responses Toward Their Therapist: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The quality of the therapeutic relationship is pivotal in determining psychotherapy outcomes. However, facilitating patients' self-awareness, reflection on, and sharing of their affective responses toward their therapist remains underexplored as a potential tool for enhancing this relationship and subsequent treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to examine whether and how the patients' regular self-monitoring and self-reflection (fostered by the systematic compilation of a brief postsession battery) on their affective reactions toward the psychotherapist impact the quality of the therapeutic relationship and treatment outcomes in individual psychotherapy. Secondary objectives are to (1) explore whether and how the characteristics of the patient, the therapist, and the process moderate the effect of regular self-monitoring on the therapeutic relationship and outcomes; (2) examine the relationships between the affective response of the patient, the alliance, and the result of the therapy session outcome; and (3) explore how the affective responses of the patient unfold or change throughout the course of the therapy. METHODS: We conducted a 1:1 randomized controlled trial of adults in individual psychotherapy versus individual psychotherapy plus self-monitoring. Participants will be enrolled through the web-based recruitment platforms "ResearchMatch" and "Research for Me," and data will be collected through web-based surveys. Participants in the control group will receive only their regular individual psychotherapy (treatment as usual) and will not complete postsession questionnaires. Participants in the intervention group will continue their regular individual psychotherapy sessions and complete the "in-Session Patient Affective Reactions Questionnaire" and the "Rift In-Session Questionnaire" following each therapy session in the 10 weeks of the trial. Additionally, after completion of the postsession battery, they will receive general written feedback encouraging them to discuss their feelings and reflections with their therapist. Participants in both groups will complete a comprehensive psychological assessment at baseline, midtrial (week 5), and end-of-trial (week 10). The primary outcome measure of the trial is the "Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure," while the secondary outcomes are the "Real Relationship Inventory-Client-Short Form," the "Working Alliance Inventory-Short Revised," and the number of scheduled therapy sessions that the patient has missed or canceled. RESULTS: The trial was approved by the institutional review board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Recruitment started in September 2023. A total of 475 individuals completed the baseline assessment. Data collection was completed in February 2024. The results are expected to be published in the autumn of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study could reveal key information on how regular self-monitoring and introspection can influence both the therapeutic relationship and treatment outcomes. Findings have the potential to shape interventions, enhance the efficacy of psychotherapeutic sessions, and possibly offer a cost-effective strategy for improving patients' well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06038747; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06038747. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55369.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".