Search

Objectives: Creating a formulation is one of the key competencies of a clinical psychologist and is understood to be important for guiding therapeutic input and understanding client distress. However, client experience of formulations can vary, with some reporting it is unhelpful and distressing. This novel review explores the experiences of clinicians and clients when creating a formulation, specifically the barriers and facilitators to collaborating on a formulation. This ultimately aims to improve client experience and engagement in formulation. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and EMBASE was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. This search was conducted using terms related to 'psychological formulation' and 'experience'. Nineteen qualitative papers met inclusion criteria and were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Findings that pertained to formulation were thematically synthesised. Results: Three analytical themes were identified: toleration of the formulation process—'a necessary evil', which highlights the potential emotional impact of formulation on the client and indicates the importance of responding to client readiness and expectations of formulation; development of the therapeutic relationship—'it's like a two way thing, isn't it?', which suggests that client empowerment, adapting to client needs and clinicians creating a safe and containing environment facilitated the formulation process; systemic factors—'walking a tightrope', which highlights the constraints of resources and team dynamics in therapists' ability to engage in collaborative formulation. Conclusion: Facilitators to a collaborative formulation include the following: simple formulations, thorough assessment and preparation for formulation, 'doing with' activities such as timelines and diagrams and working environments that include supportive colleagues and time for reflection and training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the publication of DSM‐III in 1980, the scientist‐practitioner gap in clinical psychology has expanded, as almost all outcome research in clinical psychology has been on diagnosed mental disorders within a medical model using drug trial methodologies, whereas most practising clinicians undertake functional analyses and case formulations of clinical psychological problems (CPPs) and then apply tailored interventions within an ongoing hypothesis‐testing methodology. But comparatively reliable assessment and generalizable conclusions in psychotherapy outcome research require a comprehensive theory‐derived conception or operational definition of 'CPPs', standardized functional analyses, and a taxonomy of CPPs comparable to DSM's listings of mental disorders. An alternative conception and taxonomy of CPPs have recently been proposed, offering improvements in the reliability and generalizability of case formulation‐based psychotherapy outcome research. It conceives of CPPs as instances of the formation and operation of self‐sustaining problem‐maintaining circles (PMCs) of psychological‐level causal elements—that is, at the level of cognitions, behaviours, emotions, and events or situations (stimuli). The paper describes this new conception of CPPs, a subsequent nascent taxonomy of evidence‐based PMCs which standardizes the underlying mechanisms that maintain CPPs, and ensuing benefits to research (as well as to practice) in clinical psychology. These benefits include being able to encompass all treatment‐worthy CPPs, not just diagnosable mental disorders; to assess theory‐derived intervention strategies, not just arbitrary therapy bundles; and to directly feed back into psychological theories, not just expand an atheoretical list of patented "evidence supported therapies." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]