Diagnoses,Relational Processes and Resourceful Dialogs: Tensions for Families and Family Therapy

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM‐5), given its psychiatric focus on mental disorders in individuals, presents families and family therapists with challenges. Despite considerable controversies over its adoption, the DSM‐5 extends a process of standardizing a language for human and relational concerns. No longer a diagnostic language of professionals alone, its use is medicalizing how mental health funders and administrators, as well as clients, respond to human concerns. For family therapists who practice systemically, particularly from poststructuralist and strengths‐based orientations, many tensions can follow when use of the DSM‐5 is expected by mental health administrators and funders, or by clients who present concerns about themselves or a diagnosed family member. In this paper, I explore how such DSM‐5 related tensions might be recognized, navigated, and negotiated in the practice of family therapy with clients, and with administrators and funders.     

On Murray Jackson's 1961 ‘Chair,couch and countertransference’

One of the problems facing psychoanalysts of all schools is that theory has evolved at a much faster pace than practice. Whereas there has been an explosion of theory, practice has remained, at least officially, static and unchanging. It is in this sense that Murray Jackson's 1961 paper is still relevant today. Despite the rise of the new relational and intersubjective paradigms, most psychoanalysts, and not a few Jungian analysts, still seem to feel that the couch is an essential component of the analytical setting and process. If the use of the couch is usually justified by the argument that it favours regression, facilitates analytical reverie and protects the patient from the influence of the analyst, over time many important psychoanalysts have come to challenge this position. Increasingly these analysts suggest that the use of the couch may actually be incompatible with the newer theoretical models. This contention is strengthened by some of the findings coming from the neurosciences and infant research. This underlines the necessity of empirical research to verify the clinical effectiveness of these different positions, couch or face‐to‐face, but it is exactly this type of research that is lacking.     

Sandplay therapy with couples within the framework of analytical psychology

Sandplay therapy with couples is discussed within an analytical framework. Guidelines are proposed as a means of developing this relatively new area within sandplay therapy, and as a platform to open a wider discussion to bring together sandplay therapy and couple therapy. Examples of sand trays created during couple therapy are also presented to illustrate the transformations during the therapeutic process.     

Enhanced Definitions of Intimate Partner Violence for DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 May Promote Improved Screening and Treatment

Nuanced, multifaceted, and content valid diagnostic criteria for intimate partner violence (IPV) have been created and can be used reliably in the field even by those with little‐to‐no clinical training/background. The use of such criteria such as these would likely lead to more reliable decision making in the field and more consistency across studies. Further, interrater agreement was higher than that usually reported for individual mental disorders. This paper will provide an overview of (a) IPV's scope and impact; (b) the reliable and valid diagnostic criteria that have been used and the adaptation of these criteria inserted in the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and another adaptation proposed for the forthcoming International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); (c) suggestions for screening of IPV in primary care settings; (d) interventions for IPV; and (e) suggested steps toward globally accepted programs.     

Couple and Family Treatments: Study Quality and Level of Evidence

This paper examines the application of the guidelines for evidence‐based treatments in family therapy developed by Sexton and collaborators to a set of treatment models. These guidelines classify the models using criteria that take into account the distinctive features of couple and family treatments. A two‐step approach was taken: (1) The quality of each of the studies supporting the treatment models was assessed according to a list of ad hoc core criteria; (2) the level of evidence of each treatment model was determined using the guidelines. To reflect the stages of empirical validation present in the literature, nine models were selected: three models each with high, moderate, and low levels of empirical validation, determined by the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The quality ratings highlighted the strengths and limitations of each of the studies that provided evidence backing the treatment models. The classification by level of evidence indicated that four of the models were level III, “evidence‐based” treatments; one was a level II, “evidence‐informed treatment with promising preliminary evidence‐based results”; and four were level I, “evidence‐informed” treatments. Using the guidelines helped identify treatments that are solid in terms of not only the number of RCTs but also the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of a given treatment. From a research perspective, this analysis highlighted areas to be addressed before some models can move up to a higher level of evidence. From a clinical perspective, the guidelines can help identify the models whose studies have produced clinically relevant results.     

Changes in Stepparents' Coparenting and Parenting Following Participation in a Community‐Based Relationship Education Program

Studies of coparents typically center on the relationship between parents who share a biological child; limited attention in research on community‐based programs is given to the coparenting relationship within a stepfamily, even though clinicians note the challenges inherent in this relationship. We examined changes in coparenting agreement, parenting efficacy, and parental involvement for 96 stepparents following participation in a coparenting‐focused community education program. A significant main effect of time was found for improvement in coparenting agreement, yet a significant time × gender interaction effect suggests that this is driven by improvements for stepmothers only. Parenting efficacy improved, regardless of gender, race, residence, or curriculum. A significant time × race interaction effect on change in parental involvement indicates increases in parental involvement for European American participants only. Finally, increases in coparenting agreement were associated with increases in parenting efficacy, and increases in parenting efficacy were associated with increases in parental involvement.     

Delimiting Family in Syntheses of Research on Childhood Chronic Conditions and Family Life

Synthesis of family research presents unique challenges to investigators who must delimit what will be included as a family study in the proposed review. In this paper, the authors discuss the conceptual and pragmatic challenges of conducting systematic reviews of the literature on the intersection between family life and childhood chronic conditions. A proposed framework for delimiting the family domain of interest is presented. The framework addresses both topical salience and level of relevance and provides direction to future researchers, with the goal of supporting the overall quality of family research synthesis efforts. For users of synthesis studies, knowledge of how investigators conceptualize the boundaries of family research is important contextual information for understanding the limits and applicability of the results.