不同的心理治疗方法,折衷主义,还是整合?关于治疗方法在日常实践中的相关性——一项全国心理治疗师调查的结果]。

IF 0.8 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1055/a-2503-6314
Felix Wucherpfennig, Sebastian Bock, Shirin Abidi
{"title":"不同的心理治疗方法,折衷主义,还是整合?关于治疗方法在日常实践中的相关性——一项全国心理治疗师调查的结果]。","authors":"Felix Wucherpfennig, Sebastian Bock, Shirin Abidi","doi":"10.1055/a-2503-6314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The psychotherapy guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) are oriented towards the model of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches. The consequences of these guidelines for therapeutic practice and training have been controversially discussed for some time. The present study investigated the attitude of licensed psychotherapists in Germany towards distinct psychotherapeutic approaches.Data were collected using an online survey of n=507 licensed psychotherapists. The participants were asked about their therapeutic orientation, the use of techniques compliant or non-compliant with their own approach, and their opinion on therapeutic approaches in practice and clinical training.The majority of therapists described their orientation as integrative, with assimilative integration being the most common. Techniques that are non-compliant with the therapist's own approach were considered relevant for everyday practice. The majority of respondents were able to identify well with their own approach and described that having distinct therapeutic approaches was helpful for everyday practice. The majority of behavioral therapists were in favor of transtheoretical clinical training, whereas the majority of psychoanalytic therapists rejected it.According to GBA, a combination of different psychotherapeutic approaches is prohibited, but this contradicts the current practice. Although the model of distinct therapeutic approaches offers an important frame of reference for practitioners, it can also be perceived as restrictive if it is interpreted too rigidly.The perspective of practitioners should be given greater weight in the scientific discourse on psychotherapeutic approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":47315,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","volume":"75 2","pages":"67-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Distinct psychotherapeutic approaches, eclecticism, or integration? On the relevance of therapeutic approaches in everyday practice - results of a nationwide survey of psychotherapists].\",\"authors\":\"Felix Wucherpfennig, Sebastian Bock, Shirin Abidi\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2503-6314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The psychotherapy guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) are oriented towards the model of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches. The consequences of these guidelines for therapeutic practice and training have been controversially discussed for some time. The present study investigated the attitude of licensed psychotherapists in Germany towards distinct psychotherapeutic approaches.Data were collected using an online survey of n=507 licensed psychotherapists. The participants were asked about their therapeutic orientation, the use of techniques compliant or non-compliant with their own approach, and their opinion on therapeutic approaches in practice and clinical training.The majority of therapists described their orientation as integrative, with assimilative integration being the most common. Techniques that are non-compliant with the therapist's own approach were considered relevant for everyday practice. The majority of respondents were able to identify well with their own approach and described that having distinct therapeutic approaches was helpful for everyday practice. The majority of behavioral therapists were in favor of transtheoretical clinical training, whereas the majority of psychoanalytic therapists rejected it.According to GBA, a combination of different psychotherapeutic approaches is prohibited, but this contradicts the current practice. Although the model of distinct therapeutic approaches offers an important frame of reference for practitioners, it can also be perceived as restrictive if it is interpreted too rigidly.The perspective of practitioners should be given greater weight in the scientific discourse on psychotherapeutic approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie\",\"volume\":\"75 2\",\"pages\":\"67-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2503-6314\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2503-6314","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

联邦联合委员会(GBA)的心理治疗指南是面向不同的心理治疗方法的模式。这些指导方针对治疗实践和培训的影响已经有争议地讨论了一段时间。本研究调查了德国持牌心理治疗师对不同心理治疗方法的态度。数据是通过对n=507名持牌心理治疗师的在线调查收集的。参与者被问及他们的治疗取向,使用符合或不符合他们自己的方法的技术,以及他们在实践和临床培训中对治疗方法的看法。大多数治疗师将他们的取向描述为综合的,其中同化整合是最常见的。与治疗师自己的方法不兼容的技术被认为与日常实践相关。大多数受访者能够很好地识别自己的方法,并描述了具有独特的治疗方法对日常实践有帮助。大多数行为治疗师赞成跨理论临床训练,而大多数精神分析治疗师则反对。根据GBA,不同的心理治疗方法的组合是被禁止的,但这与目前的做法相矛盾。尽管不同治疗方法的模型为从业者提供了一个重要的参考框架,但如果它被解释得过于严格,也会被认为是限制性的。在关于心理治疗方法的科学论述中,从业者的观点应该得到更大的重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Distinct psychotherapeutic approaches, eclecticism, or integration? On the relevance of therapeutic approaches in everyday practice - results of a nationwide survey of psychotherapists].

The psychotherapy guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee (GBA) are oriented towards the model of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches. The consequences of these guidelines for therapeutic practice and training have been controversially discussed for some time. The present study investigated the attitude of licensed psychotherapists in Germany towards distinct psychotherapeutic approaches.Data were collected using an online survey of n=507 licensed psychotherapists. The participants were asked about their therapeutic orientation, the use of techniques compliant or non-compliant with their own approach, and their opinion on therapeutic approaches in practice and clinical training.The majority of therapists described their orientation as integrative, with assimilative integration being the most common. Techniques that are non-compliant with the therapist's own approach were considered relevant for everyday practice. The majority of respondents were able to identify well with their own approach and described that having distinct therapeutic approaches was helpful for everyday practice. The majority of behavioral therapists were in favor of transtheoretical clinical training, whereas the majority of psychoanalytic therapists rejected it.According to GBA, a combination of different psychotherapeutic approaches is prohibited, but this contradicts the current practice. Although the model of distinct therapeutic approaches offers an important frame of reference for practitioners, it can also be perceived as restrictive if it is interpreted too rigidly.The perspective of practitioners should be given greater weight in the scientific discourse on psychotherapeutic approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
89
期刊最新文献
[Facilitators and Barriers to the Utilization of Psychotherapeutic and Psychiatric Services among Men with Depression - A Qualitative Interview Study]. Improving quality of life in cancer patients with an app-based intervention (Mika-App): secondary results from a randomized controlled waitlist-trial in Germany. [The role of defense mechanisms in conflict and structure in the operationalized psychodynamic diagnosis]. [Treatment Gaps in the Transition of Adolescent Patients from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to Adult Psychiatry in Berlin: An explorative predictor Analysis]. [Psychological and psychosocial characteristics of those affected by SED injustice in a representative survey in the New Federal States of Germany].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1