BACKGROUND: Practice-based studies have found substantial effects of psychological treatment in routine care, often equivalent between treatment methods. Factors that moderate treatment outcome may be important to assess. AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment outcome in psychological treatment in primary care, and to compare outcome between the most frequently used methods. An additional aim was to study factors that might moderate outcome differences. METHOD: The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation (CORE) system was used to evaluate psychological treatment at Swedish primary care centers. Treatment methods were coded by the therapists after treatment. Three major treatment orientations-directive (cognitive, behavioral and CBT), reflective (psychodynamic and relational) and supportive therapy were compared. Patient and therapist variables were studied as treatment moderating factors. RESULTS: Analyses of 733 therapies, delivered by 70 therapists, showed good results in short psychological treatments (median session number = 6). Forty-three percent of the patients were remitted, 34% recovered. For patients receiving at least five sessions, the figures were 50% and 40%. Directive therapy and reflective therapy had comparable outcome, and better than supportive treatment. Patients in supportive therapy had higher age and received fewer therapy sessions. The patients' motivation, alliance capacity and reflective ability, as rated by the therapist after treatment, were lower for patients in supportive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatment in primary care obtains god results. Supportive therapy should be studied more systematically, particularly with regard to variables that may moderate treatment outcome.
BACKGROUND: Practice-based studies have found substantial effects of psychological treatment in routine care, often equivalent between treatment methods. Factors that moderate treatment outcome may be important to assess. AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment outcome in psychological treatment in primary care, and to compare outcome between the most frequently used methods. An additional aim was to study factors that might moderate outcome differences. METHOD: The Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation (CORE) system was used to evaluate psychological treatment at Swedish primary care centers. Treatment methods were coded by the therapists after treatment. Three major treatment orientations-directive (cognitive, behavioral and CBT), reflective (psychodynamic and relational) and supportive therapy were compared. Patient and therapist variables were studied as treatment moderating factors. RESULTS: Analyses of 733 therapies, delivered by 70 therapists, showed good results in short psychological treatments (median session number = 6). Forty-three percent of the patients were remitted, 34% recovered. For patients receiving at least five sessions, the figures were 50% and 40%. Directive therapy and reflective therapy had comparable outcome, and better than supportive treatment. Patients in supportive therapy had higher age and received fewer therapy sessions. The patients' motivation, alliance capacity and reflective ability, as rated by the therapist after treatment, were lower for patients in supportive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological treatment in primary care obtains god results. Supportive therapy should be studied more systematically, particularly with regard to variables that may moderate treatment outcome.