The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×

To the Editor: In the April 2008 issue of the Journal , Carolyn J. Douglas, M.D. (1) discussed many issues involved in the surprisingly complex enterprise of teaching supportive psychotherapy. Dr. Douglas stated that “supportive therapy has not been sufficiently well defined in a manual or tested in controlled clinical trials to be considered evidence based” (1, p. 450). This assertion deserves exploration.

Supportive psychotherapy may be the most prevalent psychotherapy (2) . In the 1998 National Survey of Psychiatric Practice, 36% of patients treated by psychiatrists received supportive psychotherapy, a higher percentage than that for insight-oriented therapy (19%), cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (6%), or psychoanalysis (1%). The practice of supportive psychotherapy seems likely to increase since 1) residency training in the United States currently requires competency in the area of supportive psychotherapy; 2) several supportive psychotherapy texts have been recently published (35) ; and 3) supportive psychotherapy applies to a wide range of patients and clinical situations.

Psychotherapy research has usually examined supportive psychotherapy as a comparison treatment for more specific—putatively more “active”—approaches that may have received more rigorous therapist training, greater researcher allegiance (6) , and even a larger allotment of therapeutic hours. Thus, existing data pertaining to supportive psychotherapy are often suspect. Nevertheless, increasing literature on supportive psychotherapy suggests that it is active, efficacious, and often achieves lasting, meaningful results (35 , 7 , 8) . In a recent borderline personality disorder study (9) , supportive psychotherapy demonstrated generally comparable outcomes with those of dialectical behavioral therapy and transference-focused psychotherapy. In treating depression, supportive psychotherapy matched CBT despite fewer therapy sessions (10) .

Perhaps now is the time to complete the process of establishing supportive psychotherapy as an evidence-based treatment. As the most common psychotherapy, supportive psychotherapy should receive high research priority and be developed, applied, and evaluated as rigorously as CBT or interpersonal psychotherapy. It can then be taught to residents and other students as a treatment with demonstrated efficacy and refined through further research.

New York, N.Y.

Drs. Hellerstein and Markowitz have participated in studies of supportive psychotherapy funded by NIMH. Dr. Markowitz has received royalties from psychotherapy-themed books.

This letter (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08040565) was accepted for publication in May 2008.

References

1. Douglas CJ: Teaching supportive psychotherapy to psychiatric residents. Am J Psychiatry 2008; 165:445–452Google Scholar

2. Tanielian TL, Marcus SC, Suarez AP, Pincus HA: Trends in psychiatric practice, 1988–1998, II: caseload and treatment characteristics. Psych Services 2001; 52:880Google Scholar

3. Novalis PN, Rojcewicz SJ, Peele R: Clinical Manual of Supportive Psychotherapy. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Publishing, 1993Google Scholar

4. Pinsker H: A Primer of Supportive Therapy. Hillside, NJ, Analytic Press, 1997Google Scholar

5. Winston A, Rosenthal RN, Pinsker H: Introduction to Supportive Psychotherapy: Core Competencies in Psychotherapy. Arlington, Va, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2004Google Scholar

6. Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, Rosenthal R, Krause ED, Johnson S, Halperin G, Bishop M, Berman JS, Schweizer E: The researcher’s own therapy allegiances: a “wild card” in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1999; 6:95–106Google Scholar

7. Wallerstein RS: The psychotherapy research project of the Menninger Foundation: an overview. J Consult Clin Psychology 1989; 57:195–205Google Scholar

8. Hellerstein DJ, Rosenthal RN, Pinsker H, Samstag LW, Muran JC, Winston A: A randomized prospective study comparing supportive and dynamic therapies: outcome and alliance. J Psychiatric Pract Research 1998; 7:261–271Google Scholar

9. Clarkin JF, Levy KN, Lenzenweger MF, Kernberg OF: Evaluating three treatments for borderline personality disorder: a multiwave study. Am J Psychiatry 2007; 164:922–928Google Scholar

10. Markowitz JC, Kocsis JH, Fishman B, Spielman LA, Jacobsberg LB, Frances AJ, Klerman GL, Perry SW: Treatment of HIV-positive patients with depressive symptoms. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998; 55:452–457Google Scholar