Molly Magill1, Steve Martino2, Bruce Wampold3. 1. Brown University, Providence, RI, United States of America. Electronic address: molly_magill@brown.edu. 2. Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States of America; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, United States of America. 3. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States of America.
Abstract
OVERVIEW: In the current work, we build upon a small body of literature that delineates cross-cutting factors, or processes, of evidence-based alcohol or other drug (AOD) therapies. Here, we discuss Psychoeducation. We define psychoeducation as a brief process of therapy focused on the communication of varied aspects of disease- and/or treatment-related information. METHOD: The authors conducted a literature review and qualitative content analysis to derive a set of principles and practices of psychoeducation. The review used source documents (i.e., literature reviews, therapy manuals, and government-issued practice guidelines) and videos (i.e., therapy demonstration videos), and we performed analyses in NVIVO. RESULTS: The review identified nine principles and 21 practices. Together, the principles suggest that psychoeducation in evidence-based addictions therapies can be characterized as a collaborative approach to teaching, education, or other provision of information. The term collaborative denotes a shift in emphasis from compliance to a more egalitarian partnership focused on meeting individual health needs. Specific practices included ways to transition to psychoeducation (e.g., provide rationale and promote expectancy), teaching methods in psychoeducation (e.g., use plain language), tailoring content in psychoeducation (e.g., to learning style, to cultural worldview), and methods for facilitating a dialogue about the information (i.e., five question types), for facilitating understanding and retention of the information (e.g., tailor to individual needs, use of varied teaching modalities), and how to end psychoeducation and engage in related goal-setting, where applicable. CONCLUSIONS: We frame psychoeducation as a collaborative approach to teaching where client engagement, understanding, and utilization of the information provided is the central goal. We offer a novel resource with pragmatic value to trainees, providers, and clinical supervisors who do not consider themselves aligned with a single evidence-based modality but who may benefit from training and proficiency assessment in core, behavioral health counseling competencies.
OVERVIEW: In the current work, we build upon a small body of literature that delineates cross-cutting factors, or processes, of evidence-based alcohol or other drug (AOD) therapies. Here, we discuss Psychoeducation. We define psychoeducation as a brief process of therapy focused on the communication of varied aspects of disease- and/or treatment-related information. METHOD: The authors conducted a literature review and qualitative content analysis to derive a set of principles and practices of psychoeducation. The review used source documents (i.e., literature reviews, therapy manuals, and government-issued practice guidelines) and videos (i.e., therapy demonstration videos), and we performed analyses in NVIVO. RESULTS: The review identified nine principles and 21 practices. Together, the principles suggest that psychoeducation in evidence-based addictions therapies can be characterized as a collaborative approach to teaching, education, or other provision of information. The term collaborative denotes a shift in emphasis from compliance to a more egalitarian partnership focused on meeting individual health needs. Specific practices included ways to transition to psychoeducation (e.g., provide rationale and promote expectancy), teaching methods in psychoeducation (e.g., use plain language), tailoring content in psychoeducation (e.g., to learning style, to cultural worldview), and methods for facilitating a dialogue about the information (i.e., five question types), for facilitating understanding and retention of the information (e.g., tailor to individual needs, use of varied teaching modalities), and how to end psychoeducation and engage in related goal-setting, where applicable. CONCLUSIONS: We frame psychoeducation as a collaborative approach to teaching where client engagement, understanding, and utilization of the information provided is the central goal. We offer a novel resource with pragmatic value to trainees, providers, and clinical supervisors who do not consider themselves aligned with a single evidence-based modality but who may benefit from training and proficiency assessment in core, behavioral health counseling competencies.
Authors: David A Collins; Kirsten Thompson; Katharine A Atwood; Melissa H Abadi; David L Rychener; Leigh Ann Simmons Journal: Glob Adv Health Med Date: 2018-02-14