Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?

Evidence-based psychotherapeutic methods compete with each other, while meta-analysis have shown that variability due to different methods related to outcome is remarkably low. In this qualitative study six former patients were interviewed about experiences of method and technique in Affect-focused...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bane, Birgitta
Format: Others
Language:Swedish
Published: Ersta Sköndal högskola, S:t Lukas utbildningsinstitut 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:esh:diva-4546
id ndltd-UPSALLA1-oai-DiVA.org-esh-4546
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-UPSALLA1-oai-DiVA.org-esh-45462015-04-10T05:07:58ZMetodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?sweMethodological Focus on Affect; How does that feel?Bane, BirgittaErsta Sköndal högskola, S:t Lukas utbildningsinstitut2015Affect-focused psychodynamic psychotherapyAffect phobiaPsychotherapeutic methodsManual-based methods of psychotherapyPatient variablesTherapist variablesTherapeutic relationshipSatisfactionwith therapyDisappointment with therapyAffektfokuserad psykodynamisk psykoterapiAffektfobiPsykoterapeutiskaEvidence-based psychotherapeutic methods compete with each other, while meta-analysis have shown that variability due to different methods related to outcome is remarkably low. In this qualitative study six former patients were interviewed about experiences of method and technique in Affect-focused therapy, with a slight overweight towards unsatisfactory experiences. Responses were analysed and categorised in emergent themes. Methodological focus on affect showed to be a much appreciated, as well as insufficient, element. Alongside positive experiences or summaries of therapy, methodological frames were felt to be at times restrictive, even invalidating, as far as not allowing focus on what was felt to be the more predominant need. These needs were varied and individual; e.g. more/less of undetermined space free of preconceptions, more/less focus on affect, more direction forward, or more space for existentially oriented aspects. Results found good support in previous research except for a strong validation of therapists, even when aspects of therapy had been severely problematic. Experiences of applied method differed extremely among participants. The study highlighted lack of relation between method and outcome, and that positive regard of therapy and alliance were not synonymous with good outcome. Prominent themes were quality of methodological focus on affect and of therapeutic relationship, basic humanistic values, and individual factors of variance. Future research was suggested to focus on integration of methods, on therapists’ common factors, as well as on issues of power in the therapeutic relationship. Student thesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesistexthttp://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:esh:diva-4546application/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
collection NDLTD
language Swedish
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic Affect-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy
Affect phobia
Psychotherapeutic methods
Manual-based methods of psychotherapy
Patient variables
Therapist variables
Therapeutic relationship
Satisfactionwith therapy
Disappointment with therapy
Affektfokuserad psykodynamisk psykoterapi
Affektfobi
Psykoterapeutiska
spellingShingle Affect-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy
Affect phobia
Psychotherapeutic methods
Manual-based methods of psychotherapy
Patient variables
Therapist variables
Therapeutic relationship
Satisfactionwith therapy
Disappointment with therapy
Affektfokuserad psykodynamisk psykoterapi
Affektfobi
Psykoterapeutiska
Bane, Birgitta
Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?
description Evidence-based psychotherapeutic methods compete with each other, while meta-analysis have shown that variability due to different methods related to outcome is remarkably low. In this qualitative study six former patients were interviewed about experiences of method and technique in Affect-focused therapy, with a slight overweight towards unsatisfactory experiences. Responses were analysed and categorised in emergent themes. Methodological focus on affect showed to be a much appreciated, as well as insufficient, element. Alongside positive experiences or summaries of therapy, methodological frames were felt to be at times restrictive, even invalidating, as far as not allowing focus on what was felt to be the more predominant need. These needs were varied and individual; e.g. more/less of undetermined space free of preconceptions, more/less focus on affect, more direction forward, or more space for existentially oriented aspects. Results found good support in previous research except for a strong validation of therapists, even when aspects of therapy had been severely problematic. Experiences of applied method differed extremely among participants. The study highlighted lack of relation between method and outcome, and that positive regard of therapy and alliance were not synonymous with good outcome. Prominent themes were quality of methodological focus on affect and of therapeutic relationship, basic humanistic values, and individual factors of variance. Future research was suggested to focus on integration of methods, on therapists’ common factors, as well as on issues of power in the therapeutic relationship.
author Bane, Birgitta
author_facet Bane, Birgitta
author_sort Bane, Birgitta
title Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?
title_short Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?
title_full Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?
title_fullStr Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?
title_full_unstemmed Metodfokus på Affekt; Hur känns det?
title_sort metodfokus på affekt; hur känns det?
publisher Ersta Sköndal högskola, S:t Lukas utbildningsinstitut
publishDate 2015
url http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:esh:diva-4546
work_keys_str_mv AT banebirgitta metodfokuspaaffekthurkannsdet
AT banebirgitta methodologicalfocusonaffecthowdoesthatfeel
_version_ 1716800354821079040