 |
 |
 |
Druckversion |
|
|
| Family Process Heft 3/2011 |
| 1/2011 - 2/2011 - 3/2011 - 4/2011 - Überblick Imber-Black, Evan (2011): The Evolution of Family Process: Contexts and Transformations. In: Family Process 50: S. 267-279 Gurman, Alan S. (2011): Couple Therapy Research and the Practice of Couple Therapy: Can We Talk? In: Family Process 50: S. 280-292. abstract: As has been true in every other realm of psychotherapy, couple therapy research generally has had very little impact on the day-to-day practice of couple therapists. To a significant degree, this unfortunate disconnection may be attributable to an overemphasis by researchers in the field on treatment packages and therapeutic methods/techniques. Insufficient attention has been paid to other important sources of influence on treatment outcomes, especially the couple therapist herself/himself. It is argued that effective couple therapy requires a good „fit“ between the person of the therapist and her primary theoretical orientation, and that couple therapists may be more influenced by research that addresses process aspects of the therapeutic approaches to which they have their primary theoretical allegiances. Breunlin, Douglas C., William Pinsof & William P. Russell (2011): Integrative Problem-Centered Metaframeworks Therapy I: Core Concepts and Hypothesizing. In: Family Process 50: S. 293-313. abstract: Over the last 20 years psychotherapy and family therapy have been inundated with a plethora of empirically validated treatments for particular disorders. That trend will increase. Psychotherapists will increasingly be exhorted and ultimately required to integrate empirical data and multicultural competence into their practice. Additionally, individual psychotherapy‘s default dominance of psychotherapeutic discourse needs to integrate and come to theoretical and clinical terms with the implications of the growing body of research demonstrating the validity and value of a multisystemic perspective. This article (and its companion article) presents a comprehensive, integrative, multisystemic, and empirically informed psychotherapeutic perspective to help therapists and psychotherapy trainers successfully address these challenges—Integrative Problem Centered Metaframeworks (IPCM) Therapy. This first article presents and illustrates IPCM‘s theoretical foundation, core concepts, and „case formulating“ components. It delineates a Blueprint for the practice and teaching of 21st century psychotherapists who can meld science and art into best practice. Pinsof, William, Douglas C. Breunlin, William P. Russell & Jay Lebow (2011): Integrative Problem-Centered Metaframeworks Therapy II: Planning, Conversing, and Reading Feedback. In: Family Process 50: S. 314-336. abstract: This is the second of 2 articles presenting Integrative Problem Centered Metaframeworks (IPCM) Therapy, a multisystemic, integrative, empirically informed, and common factor perspective for family, couple, and individual psychotherapy. The first article presented IPCM‘s foundation concepts and Blueprint for therapy, focusing on the first Blueprint component—Hypothesizing or assessment. This article, focusing on intervention, presents the other 3 Blueprint components—Planning, Conversing, and Feedback. Articulated through the Blueprint, intervention is a clinical experimental process in which therapists formulate hypotheses about the set of constraints (the Web) within a client system that prevents problem resolution, develop a therapeutic Plan based on those hypotheses, implement the Plan through a coconstructed dialogue with the clients, and then evaluate the results. If the intervention is not successful, the results become feedback to modify the Web, revise the Plan, and intervene again. Guided by the therapeutic alliance, this process repeats until the presenting problems resolve. IPCM Planning sequentially integrates the major empirically and yet-to-be empirically validated therapies and organizes their key strategies and techniques as common factors. Conversing and Feedback employ empirical STIC¬Æ (Systemic Therapy Inventory of Change) data collaboratively with clients to formulate hypotheses and evaluate interventions. This article emphasizes the art and science of IPCM practice. Fishbane, Mona Dekoven (2011): Facilitating Relational Empowerment in Couple Therapy. In: Family Process 50: S. 337-352. abstract: Couples in distressed relationships often get caught up in power struggles, „Power Over“ interactions that are informed by both neurobiology (e.g., the fight-flight reaction) and by cultural assumptions (e.g., competition, individualism, and patriarchy). This article seeks to widen the discourse about power by highlighting „Power To“ and „Power With.“ Power To includes the ability to self-regulate, to read and manage one‘s own emotions, and to have voice while respecting the other‘s voice. Power With reflects the couple‘s commitment to conurture the relationship through empathy, respect, and generosity. Power To and Power With are proposed to constitute relational empowerment, the ability to navigate one‘s inner world and the interpersonal realm. The neurobiology of both couples‘ reactivity and relational empowerment are considered. Techniques are offered to facilitate Power To and Power With, interventions that interrupt couples‘ cycles of reactivity and allow them to make more thoughtful choices. Emotion regulation and empathy are particularly important skills of relational empowerment, and examples are offered to increase these capacities in couple therapy. The therapeutic perspective offered in this article challenges cultural practices and assumptions that keep intimate partners polarized in power struggles, and explores how relational empowerment can foster an egalitarian, mutually respectful relationship. Gotta, Gabrielle, Robert-Jay Green, Esther Rothblum, Sondra Solomon, Kimberly Balsam & Pepper Schwartz (2011): Heterosexual, Lesbian, and Gay Male Relationships: A Comparison of Couples in 1975 and 2000. In: Family Process 50(3): S. 353-376. abstract: This study examined the differences among lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals at two points in time (1975 and 2000) using responses of 6,864 participants from two archival data sets. Groups were compared on variables representing equality of behaviors between partners in seven realms: traditionally „feminine“ housework, traditionally „masculine“ housework, finances, support, communication, requesting/refusing sex, and decision-making. In addition, the current study compared monogamy agreements and monogamy behaviors reported by the two cohorts of couple types. Overall, the results indicate that on the equality variables, there have been many statistically significant behavioral shifts among the different sexual orientations across 25 years. In addition, all couple types reported substantially greater rates of monogamy in the year 2000 than in 1975. The present study has important clinical implications for therapists working with couples because it provides new baseline evidence regarding how couples now interact with one another (especially about monogamy) and how this has shifted over time. In addition, it elucidates the differences that still exist between different couple types, which could serve to inform couple therapists as they strive to become more culturally competent working with same-sex couples. Sexton, Thomas, Kristina Coop Gordon, Alan Gurman, Jay Lebow, Amy Holtzworth-Munroe & Susan Johnson (2011): Guidelines for Classifying Evidence-Based Treatments in Couple and Family Therapy. In: Family Process 50: S. 377-392. abstract: Guidelines for Evidence-Based Treatments in Family Therapy are intended to help guide clinicians, researchers, and policy makers in identifying specific clinical interventions and treatment programs for couples and families that have scientifically based evidence to support their efficacy. In contrast to criteria, which simply identify treatments that „work“ and have been employed in the evaluation of other psychotherapies, these guidelines propose a three-tiered levels-of-evidence-based model that moves from „evidence-informed,“ to „evidence-based,“ to „evidence-based and ready for dissemination and transportation within diverse community settings.“ Each level reflects an interaction between the specificity of the intervention, the strength and readth of the outcomes, and the quality of the studies that form the evidence. These guidelines uniquely promote a clinically based „matrix“ approach in which the empirical support is evaluated according to various dimensions including strength of the outcomes, the applicability across cultural contexts, and demonstration of specific change mechanisms. The guidelines are offered not only as a basis for understanding the evidence for diverse clinical approaches in couple and family therapy within the systemic tradition of the field, but also as an alternative aspirational model for evaluating all psychotherapies. Steinglass, Peter, Jamie S. Ostroff & Abbe Stahl Steinglass (2011): Multiple Family Groups for Adult Cancer Survivors and Their Families: A 1-Day Workshop Model. In: Family Process 50: S. 393-409. abstract: With marked advances in early detection and aggressive multimodality treatment, many adult cancers are now associated with good prognoses for disease-free survival. A burgeoning literature examining posttreatment quality-of-life issues has highlighted the numerous challenges experienced by patients and families in the aftermath of cancer treatment, further underscoring a need for new family-based psychosocial support interventions for cancer survivors and their families. This paper describes the clinical protocol for one such intervention, a 1-day „workshop“ version of a multiple family group (MFG) for head and neck cancer survivors and their families. Data are reported from our experiences in running five 1-day workshops. Families uniformly reported that they were highly satisfied with their MFG participation, leading us to conclude that the abbreviated 1-day MFG model we are advocating is a promising family-focused support intervention for cancer survivors and their families. Weine, Stevan Merrill (2011): Developing Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Families in Resettlement. In: Family Process 50: S. 410-430. abstract: In refugee resettlement, positive psychosocial outcomes for youth and adults depend to a great extent on their families. Yet refugee families find few empirically based services geared toward them. Preventive mental health interventions that aim to stop, lessen, or delay possible negative individual mental health and behavioral sequelae through improving family and community protective resources in resettled refugee families are needed. This paper describes 8 characteristics that preventive mental health interventions should address to meet the needs of refugee families, including: Feasibility, Acceptability, Culturally Tailored, Multilevel, Time Focused, Prosaicness, Effectiveness, and Adaptability. To address these 8 characteristics in the complex environment of refugee resettlement requires modifying the process of developmental research through incorporating innovative mental health services research strategies, including: resilience framework, community collaboration, mixed methods with focused ethnography, and the comprehensive dynamic trial. A preventive intervention development cycle for refugee families is proposed based on a program of research on refugees and migrants using these services research strategies. Furthering preventive mental health for refugee families also requires new policy directives, multisystemic partnerships, and research training. |
|
||||||||
Besuche seit dem 27.1.2005:   |