Display options
Cite
Tseliou E, Burck C, Forbat L, et al. How is Systemic and Constructionist Therapy Change Process Narrated in Retrospective Accounts of Therapy? A Systematic Meta-synthesis Review. Fam Process. 2020;60(1):64-83doi: 10.1111/famp.12562.
Tseliou, E., Burck, C., Forbat, L., Strong, T., & O'Reilly, M. (2021). How is Systemic and Constructionist Therapy Change Process Narrated in Retrospective Accounts of Therapy? A Systematic Meta-synthesis Review. Family process, 60(1), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12562
Tseliou, Eleftheria, et al. "How is Systemic and Constructionist Therapy Change Process Narrated in Retrospective Accounts of Therapy? A Systematic Meta-synthesis Review." Family process vol. 60,1 (2021): 64-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12562
Tseliou E, Burck C, Forbat L, Strong T, O'Reilly M. How is Systemic and Constructionist Therapy Change Process Narrated in Retrospective Accounts of Therapy? A Systematic Meta-synthesis Review. Fam Process. 2021 Mar;60(1):64-83. doi: 10.1111/famp.12562. Epub 2020 Jun 30. PMID: 32602564.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Fam Process. 2021 Mar;60(1):64-83. doi: 10.1111/famp.12562. Epub 2020 Jun 30.

How is Systemic and Constructionist Therapy Change Process Narrated in Retrospective Accounts of Therapy? A Systematic Meta-synthesis Review.

Family process

Eleftheria Tseliou, Charlotte Burck, Liz Forbat, Tom Strong, Michelle O'Reilly

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Psychology, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece.
  2. Family Therapy and Systemic Research Centre, Tavistock Clinic, London, UK.
  3. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
  4. Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
  5. The Greenwood Institute of Child Health, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.

PMID: 32602564 DOI: 10.1111/famp.12562

Abstract

Despite the considerable potential of qualitative approaches for studying the systemic and constructionist therapy process due to shared theoretical and epistemological premises, to date there is lack of a comprehensive qualitative synthesis of how change process is experienced and conceptualized by clients and therapists. To address this evidence gap, we performed a systematic meta-synthesis review of 30 studies reporting clients' and therapists' retrospective narratives of change process across systemic and constructionist models and across a range of client configurations, including individuals, couples, families, and groups. The studies were identified following a systematic search in PsycINFO and MEDLINE resulting in 2,977 articles, which were screened against eligibility criteria. Thematic analysis led to the identification of four main themes: (1) navigating through differences, (2) toward nonpathologizing construction of problems, (3) navigating through power imbalances, and (4) toward new and trusting ways of relating. Findings illustrate the multifaceted aspects of systemic and constructionist change process, the importance for their reflexive appraisal, and the need for further research contributing to the understanding of the challenges inherent in the systemic and constructionist therapeutic context.

© 2020 Family Process Institute.

Keywords: Change process; Constructionist therapy; Psychotherapy process; Qualitative research; Systematic meta-synthesis review; Systemic therapy; investigación cualitativa; proceso de cambio; proceso de psicoterapia; revisión sistemática de la metasíntesis; terapia construccionista; terapia sistémica; 变化过程; 建构主义治疗; 心理治疗过程; 系统治疗; 系统综合性文献综述; 质的研究

References

  1. Anderson, H. (2012). Collaborative relationships and dialogic conversations: Ideas for a relationally responsive practice. Family Process, 51, 8-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01385.x. - PubMed
  2. Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. In J. O. Urmson (Ed.). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. - PubMed
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. - PubMed
  4. Burck, Ch, & Simon, G. (2017). Developments in systemic practitioner research. Journal of Family Therapy, 39, 285-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12185. - PubMed
  5. Chenail, R. J., George, S. S., Wulff, D., Duffy, M., Scott, K. W., & Tomm, K. (2012). Clients’ relational conceptions of conjoint couple and family therapy quality: A grounded formal theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 241-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00246.x. - PubMed
  6. Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435-1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312452938. - PubMed
  7. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2017). CASP Qualitative Checklist. Retrieved from http://www.casp-uk.net/. Accessed: 28 October 2017. - PubMed
  8. Elliott, R. (2010). Psychotherapy change process research: Realising the promise.. Psychotherapy Research, 20(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300903470743. - PubMed
  9. Franklin, C., Zhang, A., Froerer, A., & Johnson, S. (2017). Solution focused brief therapy: A systematic review and meta-summary of process research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12193. - PubMed
  10. Friedlander, M. L., Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., & Diamond, G. M. (2011). Alliance in couple and family therapy. Psychotherapy, 48, 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022060. - PubMed
  11. Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Escudero, V. (2013). Research based change mechanisms: Advances in process research. In T. L. Sexton & J. Lebow (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (4th ed.) New York: Routledge. - PubMed
  12. Friedlander, M. L., Wildman, J., Heatherington, L., & Skowron, E. A. (1994). What we know and what we don’t know about family therapy process. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(4), 390-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.8.4.390. - PubMed
  13. Gelo, O. C., Pritz, A., & Rieken, B. (Eds.) (2015). Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process and outcome. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1382-0. - PubMed
  14. Grácio, J., Gonçalves-Pereira, M., & Leff, J. (2016). What do we know about family interventions for psychosis at the process level? A systematic review . Family process, 55(1), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12155. - PubMed
  15. Heatherington, L., Friedlander, M. L., Diamond, G. M., Escudero, V., & Pinsof, W. M. (2015). 25 Years of systemic therapies research: Progress and promise. Psychotherapy Research, 25(3), 348-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.983208. - PubMed
  16. Heatherington, L., Friendlander, M. L., & Greenberg, L. (2005). Change process research in couple and family therapy: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.18. - PubMed
  17. Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd edition. Chichester, UK: John, Wiley & Sons. - PubMed
  18. Levac, M., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/5/1/69. - PubMed
  19. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G.; The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097. - PubMed
  20. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M. et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. - PubMed
  21. O’Reilly, M., & Lester, J. (2017). Empirical examples: Language, mental health and therapeutic approaches. In M. O’Reilly, & J. Lester (Ed.), Examining mental health through social constructionism (pp. 229-259). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. - PubMed
  22. Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2020a). Conversation analysis and family therapy: A critical review of methodology. Family Process, 59(2), 460-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12431. - PubMed
  23. Ong, B., Barnes, S., & Buus, N. (2020b). Conversation analysis and family therapy: a narrative review. Journal of Family Therapy, 42(2), 169-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12269 - PubMed
  24. Peters, M. D. J., Goldfrey, Ch. M., McInerney, P., Soares, C. B., Khalil, H., & Parker, D. (2015). The Johanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Adelaide, South Australia: The University of Adelaide. Retrieved from http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf. Accessed: 9 September 2017. - PubMed
  25. Pinsof, W. M., & Wynne, L. C. (2000). Toward progress research: Closing the gap between family therapy practice and research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2000.tb00270 - PubMed
  26. Sandelowski, M., & J. Barroso (Eds.) (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer. - PubMed
  27. Sexton, T. L., & J. Lebow (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of family therapy. New York: Routledge. - PubMed
  28. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., & Petticrew, M. et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 2015(349), g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 - PubMed
  29. Sprenkle, D. H. (2012). Intervention research in couple and family therapy: A methodological and substantive review and introduction to the special issue. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00271.x - PubMed
  30. Sprenkle, D. H., Davis, S. D., & Lebow, J. L. (2009). Common factors in couple and family therapy: The overlooked foundation for effective practice. New York: Guilford Press. - PubMed
  31. Strong, T. (2016). Discursive awareness and resourcefulness: Bringing discursive researchers into closer dialogue with discursive therapists? In M. O’Reilly, & J. Lester (Ed.), Examining mental health through social constructionism (pp. 481-501). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. - PubMed
  32. Strong, T., & Smoliak, O. (2018). Introduction to discursive research and discursive therapies. In O. Smoliak & T. Strong (Eds.), Therapy as discourse. Practice and research (pp. 1-18). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan. - PubMed
  33. Timulak, L. (2009). Meta-analysis of qualitative studies: A tool for reviewing qualitative research findings in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4-5), 591-600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802477989 - PubMed
  34. Tseliou, E. (2013). A critical methodological review of discourse and conversation analysis studies of family therapy. Family Process, 52(4), 653-672. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12043 - PubMed
  35. Tseliou, E., & Borcsa, M. (2018). Discursive methodologies for couple and family therapy research: Editorial to special section. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(3), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12308 - PubMed
  36. Tseliou, E., Burck, C., Forbat, L., Strong, T., & O’Reilly, M. (2020). The Discursive performance of change process in systemic and constructionist therapies: A systematic meta-synthesis review of In-Session Therapy Discourse. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12560 - PubMed
  37. Wampler, B. E. (2015). How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World Psychiatry, 14, 270-277. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20238 - PubMed
  38. Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press McGraw Hill Education. - PubMed
  39. Willig, C. (2019). What can qualitative psychology contribute to psychological knowledge? Psychological Methods, 24(6), 796-804. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000218 - PubMed
  40. Willig, C., & Wirth, L. (2018). A meta-synthesis of studies of patients’ experience of living with terminal cancer. Health Psychology, 37(3), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000581 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types