See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236029438

The efficacy and effectiveness of family therapy

Chapter · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
2 23,677

2 authors:

D. Russell Crane Triston B Morgan

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus
98 PUBLICATIONS   3,470 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Family Therapy Outcomes for Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder across Professional License Types and Modalities View project

The Regulation of Family Therapists Around the World View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Triston B Morgan on 30 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Family Therapy Research 1

Running Head: FAMILY THERAPY RESEARCH

A forthcoming chapter to appear in: Family and Health Care Services, G. Pereira (Ed.)

The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Family Therapy: A Summary and Progress Report

D. Russell Crane

Triston B. Morgan

Brigham Young University

D. Russell Crane, Ph.D, is a Professor in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at

Brigham Young University. Triston B. Morgan, M.S. is a doctoral candidate in the same

graduate program. Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to D. Russell

Crane, Ph.D., Brigham Young University, 257 TLRB, Provo, UT 84602. E-mail:

[email protected].
 Family Therapy Research 2

Abstract

This paper provides a summary of efficacy and effectiveness research for family therapy.

Section one review efficacy studies for a number of mental health problems and concerns

including conduct disorder, substance abuse, depression and a number of other mental health

problems. The second section discusses the effectiveness of family therapy in terms of the costs

of providing such care. Data was available from four different sources: 1) a large western Health

Maintenance Organization with 180,000 subscribers in the local Utah region; 2) the Medicaid

system of the entire State of Kansas in the United States; 3) CIGNA Behavioral Health, the

behavioral health division of CIGNA, a large US health insurance company with several million

subscribers; and a Family Therapy training clinic. Results suggest that family therapy reduces

the number of health care visits, especially for high utilizers. These results were also replicated

in a graduate student training clinic. Also, studies of two different health care systems (and a cost

projection study) suggest that including family therapy as a treatment option does not

significantly increase health care costs.

 Family Therapy Research 3

The Efficacy and Effectiveness of Family Therapy: A Summary and Progress Report

Family therapy is relatively new in the field of mental health treatment. Pioneering work

with families of schizophrenic patients in the 1940’s and 1950’s began the movement and the

number of practitioners of this form of psychotherapy has been growing around the world ever

since.

Family therapy, which is based on systems theory, owes a great deal of recognition to the

work of Gregory Bateson and others at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California.

Bateson set aside the process of focusing on a person’s past behavior and the symbolic

interpretation of behavior to ascertain why a person is experiencing distress. Instead, they looked

at the communication patterns between family members (Napier & Whitaker, 1978). As a result

of this pioneering work, cybernetics became an anchor point for systems theory. Cybernetics

includes considerations of circularity, structure (hierarchy), homeostasis and feedback, sequences

of interaction, and rules including 1st and 2nd order changes. Bateson also theorized that

psychotic behavior would make more sense if viewed in the context of pathological family

communication. They hypothesized that patients were not “crazy” in an isolated autonomous

way, but rather their behavior was an extension of dysfunctional family environments. From this

came the double bind theory. The double bind theory refers to communication messages between

family members. These messages should not be confused with a simple contradiction or paradox.

Instead, double bind messages are done in an ongoing, important relationship between two or

more people, where one message is given along with another that conflict with the first.

Additionally, there is no escape for the conflicted person from the situation or relationship.
 Family Therapy Research 4
Finally, the patient becomes confused and responds with bizarre and unpredictable behavior. As

a result they are viewed as disturbed or mentally ill.

Systems theory

Fundamental to systems theory is its definition: a system is the interaction of a group of

elements, people, places and things constituting an organic whole. Examples of a system are a

plant, a person’s immune system, a university, a government and a family. In order for a system

to be alive the inclusive parts have to interact creating integrity and balance. Therefore, an action

by one part of the system influences another part creating a web of dependency.

A family is systemic in that it includes “(1) a structure and hierarchy, (2) powerful rules

of conduct, (3) a set of politics, (4) habitual patterns, (5) a history, (6) influences from the

outside, and (7) a tendency to resist change”.

Basic concepts to systems theory, which follow in the footsteps of Bateson’s thinking,

include three main ideas. First is the concept that a system is greater than the sum of its parts.

Second, there is a pull in each system, whether it is a family, business, or school, to maintain

integrity and balance through their interactions within themselves. Third is the idea of circularity,

meaning that the actions of one part of the family affect the other parts, which in turn change the

first part and so on, making the components of a system interdependent.

How family therapy is systemic

Family therapy is systemic in that it utilizes different parts of the system in which the

problem is occurring. Rather than depending on one persons’ experience and point of view to

conceptualize or solve problems, family therapy includes brothers, sisters, parents, step-parents

and step-siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Broader definitions of family therapy
 Family Therapy Research 5
call for utilizing other systems in which the identified client is a part of such as school, work,

church and so forth.

To conceptualize how a family is systemic it is important to understand the difference

between content versus process. In individual psychotherapy, it is easy to focus on the content of

what is being addressed. For example, a clinician might ask, “What did you say to you mother

when she disappointed you?” In family therapy, a clinician’s focus must include the process of

what is happening between systems members. For example, a systemically oriented therapist

might say to a mother, father and daughter in therapy, “I notice that you get really quiet and

timid when you try and tell you daughter how she has disappointed you, and that your daughter

gets agitated and upset when you bring up your hurt feelings. During which your husband steps

in and tries to take the focus off this negative interaction by making jokes or using humor.” The

focus is then on the process of the daughter-mother-father interaction, and less on the content of

what is being said. What is being said is not as important as how it is being said, to whom it is

being said and under what circumstances. Family therapy focuses on process more than content.

Research on Family Therapy

Most studies reviewed previously and here are efficacy studies. Efficacy research which

emphasizes controlled experimental and clinical trials, under specific conditions and in many

ways represents the “gold standard” for establishing the usefulness of a particular treatment

approach. However, as Stratton (2002) notes, efficacy studies are only the beginning of the story

when considering the advantage of a certain approach to problems. Effectiveness studies also

must be conducted, meaning that the controlled studies reviewed for their “efficacy” must be

applied in a field or real life setting and tested to see if they are useful in applied settings. As a
 Family Therapy Research 6
result, both efficacy and effectiveness studies will be considered in separate sections of the

present chapter.

Efficacy of Family Therapy

Family Therapy has been shown to be an efficacious form of psychotherapy for a number

of mental health disorders and concerns including: affective disorders, alcohol and substance

abuse, conduct disorder and delinquency, childhood behavioral and emotional disorders,

domestic violence, illness and physical disorders and severe mental illness. The following

discussion is a brief overview of what can be obtained in more detail if one wishes more in-depth

reviews (e.g. Carr, 2000a, Cottrell & Boston, 2002, Sprenkle, 2002, Stratton, 2005).

Marital Distress

With high divorce and relationship break-up rates in many nations, marital distress is a

pressing problem appearing clinician’s offices. Research on treatments for marital distress has

shown efficacy for behavioral marital therapy, emotionally focused couples therapy, insight

oriented marital therapy, cognitive marital therapy, and cognitive-behavioral marital therapy

combination packaged treatments (Baucom, Shoham, Mueser, Daiuto, & Stickle, 1998; Bray &

Jouriles, 1995; Crane, 1996). For example, in one study, a nine-month follow-up demonstrated

effects sizes for behavioral marital therapy which ranged from 0.54 to 1.04 meaning that the

average couples treated obtain better outcomes at nine months than between 70% and 84% of the

non-treatment control groups (Dunn & Schwebel, 1995). There are many other studies which

show that family-based approaches are efficacious in treating marital and couple distress

problems.

Conduct Disorder
 Family Therapy Research 7
Conduct disorder, with prevalence rates around 1% to 10% in the general population,

has been noted among the most frequently diagnosed conditions in both inpatient and outpatient

mental health facilities (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). The efficacy of family

therapy in treating conduct disorders has been repeatedly demonstrated (Cottrell & Boston,

2002). Empirically supported treatments include (1) Functional Family Therapy (FFT), (2)

Multisystemic Therapy (MST), and (3) Oregon Treatment Foster Care (OTFC) (Henggeler &

Sheidow, 2002).

For nearly 30 years FFT has been utilized in treating conduct disordered youth and their

families (Henggeler & Sheidow, 2002) and has a treatment manual (Alexander et al., 1998).

Alexander and Parsons (1973) found that FFT demonstrated a 50% lower recidivism rate that

other treatments when treating conduct disorder. These findings have been replicated in more

recent studies (e.g. Alexander & Sexton, 2002). Drawing on a more disadvantaged and severely

offending population of youth FFT demonstrated an 11% recidivism rate compared to 67% for

controls receiving no treatment (Gordon, Arbuthnot, Gustafson, & McGreen, 1988).

With a 25 year treatment developmental history (Henggeler & Sheidow, 2002), MST has

also shown impressive results, with intervention techniques described in a treatment manual

(Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, & Cunningham, 1998). Six studies have

demonstrated the efficacy of MST over control groups. Treatment effects include improved

school attendance, increased family functioning and relationships, decreased psychiatric

symptoms, and reduction of substance use (Henggeler & Sheidow, 2002).

Also delineated in a treatment manual (Chamberlain & Mihalic, 1998) OTFC has shown

positive results. The first study completed included 16 youth aged 13 to 18 with a matched

control group. The OTFC treated youth were less likely to leave the treatment setting
 Family Therapy Research 8
prematurely, more likely to complete treatment and incurred fewer days incarcerated at a 2-year

follow-up (Chamberlain, 1990). In the second study, a group of 79 male youths aged 12 to 17

were shown to be less likely to run from treatment and more likely to complete it, accumulated

less days in detention facilities, tallied fewer criminal offenses, and spent more days with

biological parents at the one-year follow-up (Chamberlain & Reid, 1998).

Substance Abuse

In 2004, 19.1 million Americans (7.9% of population) reported current drug use, and

almost half (50.3%) of Americans 12 years old and older reported current alcohol use. Of the

alcohol users, 22.8% were binge drinkers (five or more drinks during one occasion in the past 30

days) and 6.9 % were heavy drinkers (five or more drinks during five different occasions in the

past 30 days). In 2004, a staggering 22.5 million Americans (9.4% of the population) aged 12

and older were classified with substance abuse or dependence disorders (Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration, 2005). Similar findings of substance abuse and resulting

effects have been shown for other countries as well (e.g., Haasen, C., et al., 2004; Ramstedt, M.,

2002).

Adolescent drug abuse treatment. Waldron (1997) stated in a literature review that family

therapy has emerged as the superior treatment when treating adolescents for substance abuse.

Santisteban et al.’s (1996) family therapy and engagement method using a strategic-structural

approach boasted an 81% engagement rate compared to a 62% engagement rate for adolescent

group therapy. Others have found impressive engagement rates for family-based approaches over

control conditions as well (Donohue et al., 1998).

Once an adolescent enters treatment family-based approaches have been shown effective

in retaining and helping them to complete treatment. One MST study reported a 98% completion
 Family Therapy Research 9
rate for adolescents in treatment (Henggeler, Pickrel, Brondino, & Crouch, 1996). Henggeler,

Clingempeel, Brondino, and Pickrel (2002) found that MST had a 55% abstinence rate at a four-

year follow-up when compared with a 28% abstinence rate for usual services offered. Drug use

by adolescents treated with Multidimensional Family Therapy in one study continued to decline

during the 12 months after discharge compared to a leveling off effect for an individual cognitive

based approach (Liddle, 2002).

Stanton and Shadish (1997) completed a meta-analysis of family-based interventions for

both adolescent and adult users involving 15 studies through 1997. Findings demonstrated that

positive results for family-based adolescent treatments were significantly different than non-

family-based approaches (d = 0.39, p < .01) meaning that the differences did not happen merely

by chance, but rather that the different type of treatments accounted for differences in outcomes.

They report that family-based treatments were more effective than individual therapy, peer group

therapy and family psychoeducation in reducing drug use.

Adult drug abuse treatment. Adult treatment has proven to be just as efficacious as

adolescent treatment (Stanton & Shadish, 1997). Among the most promising treatments for this

problem is Behavioral Couple’s Therapy (BCT). When considering the mean percent of days

abstinent at a one-year follow-up, Fals-Stewart, O’Farrell and Birchler (1997) found that BCT

(73.2 days) did better than individual treatment (65.1). Fals-Stewart, Birchler and O’Farrell

(1996) found that BCT was a more efficacious treatment when compared to individual treatment

on effects for relationship outcomes, days of drug use, length of abstinence, and drug-related

arrests and hospitalizations. Not only do parents benefit from BCT but it has been shown that

children’s behavioral functioning improves more after their drug using fathers complete BCT,
 Family Therapy Research 10
than if they were to complete individual behavioral therapy or psychoeducational attention

control treatment (Kelley & Fals-Stewart, 2002).

Alcohol abuse. Family-based alcohol treatment has shown to be efficacious in several

areas. First, family-based treatments have shown 57-86% engagement rates compared to the 0-

31% engagement rates for other treatment types (Edwards & Steinglass, 1995). Specifically the

Community Reinforcement and Family Training Approach has boasted a 64% engagement rate

compared to 22% for the Johnson Institute Intervention and Al-Anon’s 14% engagement rate.

Second, when considering effective treatment delivery Carr (2000b) states that the two most

effective packages for treatment are the community reinforcement approach and behavioral

marital therapy. Also, BCT has had extensive research conducted concluding that it is an

effective form of treatment. Third, family-based treatments have shown to be more effective than

individual treatments when considering relapse prevention (Edwards & Steinglass, 1995). The

evidence for efficacious treatments is clear and decisive.

Childhood Behavioral and Emotional Disorders

The treatment of children with behavioral or emotional problems with family-based

interventions has shown considerable efficacy (Estrada & Pinsof, 1995). Estrada and Pinsof

(1995) state that the inclusion of parents in a child’s treatment produces better outcomes for both

parents and children than if the parents were not participating. Carr (2000a), in an extensive

review of the literature, concluded that there is evidence that family-based approaches are

efficacious for children who have been physically abused or neglected, who have conduct

disorder problems, problems with attention or activity, drug use problems, anxiety, depression

and/or grief problems and psychosomatic problems.

 Family Therapy Research 11
Family-based interventions have shown efficacy for anxiety-related disorders such as

darkness phobia, school phobia, generalized anxiety, and obsessive compulsive disorders (Carr,

2000a). Family therapy has also demonstrated efficacy for treating anorexia nervosa in

adolescents (Eisler, leGrange, & Asen, 2002). In many of these studies family-based

interventions were compared to different control groups, one of which being individual

treatment, and fared better in outcomes.

With attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder prevalence rates ranging from 3%-7% in

school aged children (APA, 2000) an effective treatment is necessary. Hinshaw, Klein, and

Abikoff (1998) and have concluded that the most efficacious interventions for attention and

hyperactivity problems are family-based multimodal treatments. These types of programs

typically include using drugs/medicine along with family therapy and or parent training (Carr,

2000a). Treating parents or teaching them how to interact with their children is just as important

as treating their children.

Affective Disorders

The lifetime prevalence rates for major depressive disorder are around 14-18% (APA,

1994). Behavioral marital therapy has been shown in a number of studies to decreasing

depressive symptoms of up to 50% of the cases examined, and also to delay relapse (Baucom, et.

al., 1998). Conjoint interpersonal therapy has also been shown to be efficacious for treating a

depressed partner (Foley, Rounsaville, Weissman, Sholomaskas, & Chevron, 1990). Consistent

in three different studies (Beach & O’Leary, 1992; Emanuels-Zuurveen & Emmelkamp, 1996;

Jacobson, Dobson, Fruzzetti, Schmaling, & Salusky, 1991) when compared to individual

therapy, behavioral marital therapy yielded similar outcomes when measuring depression post

treatment, but when measuring marital outcomes, behavioral marital therapy faired better.
 Family Therapy Research 12
O’Leary (1990) also found that when a spouse has a depressive episode after marital

discord the best treatment for them was marital therapy when compared with cognitive therapy.

Not only did marital satisfaction improve, but marital satisfaction reportedly decreased for wives

when they received cognitive therapy for a depressive problem. Given that martial discord is

highly predictive of depression, it is important to treat the family unit or spousal unit in order to

produce the best outcomes.

Physical Disorders

Keicolt-Glaser and Glaser (2001) found in their literature review that emotional support

by others was the best indicator of a person’s physical health. Also, they stated that the marital

status of those they studied was an indicator of their mortality, mortality from a specific illness

and morbidity rates. Researchers have also found that family criticism was a strong predictor of

relapse for asthma, weight management, high blood pressure, depression, schizophrenia,

smoking, and migraine headaches. Most of which have some evidence in research for the

efficacy of family-based approaches of treatment (Campbell, 2006). In addition, a number of

efficacious treatments have been created for treating physical conditions including rheumatoid

arthritis (Radojevic, Nicassio, & Weismann, 1992) and osteoarthritic knee pain (Keefe, Murray,

& Caldwell, 1996). Furthermore, Ewart, Taylor, Kraemer and Agras (1984) found that couples

skills training reduced systolic blood pressure for individuals suffering from this type of

problem. These studies and many others all point in the direction of family involvement. When

the family is included in treatment, positive outcomes increase and individuals are healthier.

Meta-analysis

Early meta-analytic studies concluded that family therapy was an effective form of

treatment. Specifically, Hazelrigg, Cooper, and Borduin (1987) reviewed 20 studies and found
 Family Therapy Research 13
that family therapy had a positive effect after treatment with a mean effect size of Cohen’s d =

0.50 versus a control/no-treatment group, and a Cohen’s d = 0.65 versus different treatment

groups. Another meta-analysis (Shadish et al., 1993) which included studies that utilized a

random assignment and distressed patients demonstrated a positive effect size of d = 0.51.

Shadish and Baldwin (2003) completed a study of 20 meta-analyses of couples and

family therapy, creating a meta-meta-analysis. They concluded that marriage and family therapy

is an empirically supported treatment option for both specific and a broad range of problems.

Specifically that (1) marriage and family therapy treatments are efficacious when compared to no

treatment, (2) that these treatments are as efficacious, if not more, than other interventions such

as individual therapy, and (3) there is little difference in efficacy when comparing different

approaches within the marriage and family discipline.

It is no question that family-based treatments are efficacious in treating a wide range of

diagnoses. But are these efficacious family-based treatments competitive when considering

costs? And, how do these costs influence treatment dissemination in a health care setting?

Effectiveness of Family Therapy

As demonstrated above, family therapy has been shown to be an effective form of

psychotherapy for a number of mental health disorders and concerns. However, efficacy research

which emphasizes controlled experimental and clinical trials, under specific conditions, does not

adequately address the effectiveness of family therapy in real world situations. While treatments

that are found to be effective in the lab, under ideal and carefully controlled conditions, may

reveal powerful effects, the replication of the same treatments in applied settings is more

difficult. Additionally, there are few known studies on the costs of providing family therapy in

real life conditions.

 Family Therapy Research 14
Although the efficacy evidence base for family therapy is good, very few studies have

been done that address the issue of the costs of including this service as a treatment option in

health care and mental health care systems. In an effort to address this issue, a number of

effectiveness studies have been done to investigate the economic impact of using family therapy

in existing health care systems (e.g., Crane, Hillin, & Jakubowski, 2005, Law, & Crane, 2000,

Law, Crane, & Berge, 2003). Effectiveness research is concerned with the effect of real services

to real people by real practitioners. In other words, the effect of mental health services conducted

under the same conditions in which most therapy is provided in every-day practice.

The advantage of effectiveness studies is that real people, under real service conditions,

are the topic of interest. The main disadvantages of these types of studies are that they are

inherently difficult to control since they must investigate conditions as they naturally exist and

very little experimental control is possible. In addition, because of the difficulty in establishing

experimental control, causality and cause-and-effect relationships cannot be established.

Interpretations, therefore, must be cautions and discuss associations and relationships between

variables and not cause and effect.

The data which was used for the effectiveness studies to be discussed come from four

sources: 1) a large western United States Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) with 180,000

subscribers in the local Utah region; 2) the Medicaid system of the State of Kansas in the United

States (US); 3) CIGNA Behavioral Health, the behavioral health division of CIGNA, a large US

health insurance company with several million subscribers; and 4) A family therapy training

clinic at a large western university.

A. Health Maintenance Organization (HMO)

The first set of studies addressed the possible “medical offset” of marital/couples and
 Family Therapy Research 15
family therapy provided in a large local HMO system. A “medical offset” occurs when people

reduce their use of medical services following some type of psychotherapy or behavioral health

intervention.

The HMO system which housed the first studies on family therapy medical use offset was

typical of many such health care systems in the United States. In this type of system, employers

and employees contract with the HMO to provide all of their health and mental health care. The

cost of health care is shared by both employers and employees for a fixed price per month. In

some ways, the system is quite similar to health care systems found in different parts Europe and

Canada. The main similarity is that patients receive all of their health care and mental health care

in the same system with a central administration. The main differences in these systems are the

mechanisms of payment for health care services. In the present system, patients and employers

combine to pay for health care services. In many European health care systems, payments are

tax-based and come from various governmental bodies including health care and social service

systems with little or any direct payment from patients.

In the present HMO, providers from almost all health and mental health disciplines were

employed by the HMO to provide care to those enrolled in the plans. All providers are licensed

by the state government to provide health or mental health care in the State in which the care is

given.

Data from this HMO, in the form of paper medical charts, was available for all

individuals, couples and families who received mental health services. Health care records for

the same individuals were collected for six months before, during and after therapy. These

studies used outpatient care as the dependent variable. Outpatient visits were defined as medical

care for illness, injury, psychotropic medication management, health screening, urgent care,
 Family Therapy Research 16
laboratory work, or x-rays. Emergency room, prescription, and hospitalization data were not

available.

Participants were randomly selected from those who had used individual, marital/couple,

or family therapy. In order to assure distinct groups for comparison purposes, the ratio of the

predominant type of therapy (individual, marital/couple, or family therapy) to other types of

therapy needed to be at least 3 : 1.

Five different types of therapy were studied: 1) marital/couples therapy; 2) family therapy

identified patient (FTIP) (identified as the “reason” the family is seeking therapy); 3) family

therapy other patient (FTOP) (participants in family therapy who were not the identified patient);

5) those who received individual therapy; and 5) a comparison group of HMO subscribers who

had not received any form of psychotherapy.

Study one (Law & Crane, 2000):

In this study, the medical utilization rates of randomly selected groups who received

different types of therapy were compared for six months before therapy, six months after therapy

began and at one year after therapy. Results suggest that family therapy was associated with a

significant decrease in health care use at one year after therapy began. Overall, marital/couple

and family therapy participants reduced their health care use 21% after therapy. Another

interesting finding (although not statistically significant) was the 30% decrease in health care use

for FTOP patients. These family therapy participants who were not the identified patient showed

substantial decreases in their health care use. Obviously, further research in regarding this

possible outcome needs to be conducted.

_______________________________________________________________________

Insert Table 1
 Family Therapy Research 17
About Here

________________________________________________________________________

Study two (Law, Crane & Berge, 2003):

“High Utilizers” (n = 65) defined as four or more medical visits in the 6-month period

were selected from the study one sample. Analysis of the health care use rates of these

individuals was unable to differentiate chronic health conditions from those who might be

experiencing some form of somaticization of their emotional concerns. Consequently, the results

undoubtedly contain persons with both types of concerns.

Results when comparing pre and one year follow-up health care utilization rates for high

utilizers demonstrate dramatic decreases in health care use for all types of therapy with decreases

in health care use ranging from 48% for individual therapy participants to 57% for family

therapy “other” patient involved in family therapy. In addition, reductions for recipients of

couples therapy and family therapy as the identified patient were both 50%. Further research

should be done that focuses on this type of health care consumer.

_______________________________________________________________________

Insert Table 2

About Here

________________________________________________________________________

Study three (Crane, Wood, Law, & Schaalje, 2004) explored the role of professional

discipline, age, amount of experience, and gender of therapists in producing a medical offset.

The results of logistic regression analysis suggested that psychotherapy in general, rather than

professional training or therapist characteristics is responsible for reductions in health care

 Family Therapy Research 18
utilization. In other words, all providers regardless of training, age, gender of experience level

produced the same amount of medical use offset.

Study four (Crane & Christenson, in review), sought to further investigate the “offset

effect” by breaking down the dependent variable into different types of outpatient care. In order

to asses a “stress” hypothesis, this study considered specific areas of outpatient care separately.

A health care visit was classified as “urgent care” when the service was not part of a regularly

scheduled care, nor was it an emergency. Urgent care can have been for common illnesses and/or

sudden crises in the system that could prompt help seeking.

Urgent care visits showed a significant 47% reduction from pre- to post-intervention time

periods, with such changes evident for subjects who attended marital and family therapy. Health

care use reductions were more prominent for high utilizers and were found across a number of

different types of outpatient care. With high utilizers, those who participated in MFT showed

significant reductions of 68% for health screening visits, 38% for illness visits, 56% for

laboratory/x-ray visits, and 78% for urgent care visits. These results suggest that families and

individuals use urgent care services more before therapy than after, possibly as a response to

stress in the family system (pre-treatment) that have been ameliorated (post-treatment).

Overall, data from this HMO suggests that MFT treatments reduce health care use in

general with very large reductions for high utilizers of health care.

B. Medicaid system in the State of Kansas

The second naturally occurring health care system available for study used data from the

Medicaid system of the State of Kansas. Medicaid is a federally funded health care system for

poor children and some adults with disabilities. It is the largest single health care provider for

children in the United States and is administered separately by each state.

 Family Therapy Research 19
The first study was focused on conduct disordered youth Study one (Crane, et. al.,

2005). Retrospective health care costs data for almost 4,000 multi-ethnic youth diagnosed as

“conduct disordered” were identified and tracked over a 30 month period. The total costs of all

health care (including mental health care) were available for analysis.

Data was available for 3753 youth. Overall, 3086 youth received care that included

individual therapy (and no family therapy), 503 received in-home family therapy and 164 others

received in-office family therapy. Health care costs for a period of two and one half years after

therapy were available for analysis.

The largest group (N = 3,086) received a variety of services, but no family therapy. In

this group, 81% were male, 19% female with an average age of 14.4 years (range 5–18).

Ethnically, they were 73% Caucasian, 18% African-American, 7% Hispanic, and 1% Native

American and Asian youth.

The next largest group (N = 503) were individuals who received a wide range of services

but who uniquely, also received family therapy as an in-home service. For these youth, the mean

age was 14.7 (range 5–18) with 91% males and 9 % female. Ethnically, there were roughly 21%

African American, and 79 % Caucasian.

The third group were youth (N = 164) who received a range of services similar to those

received for all youth, but who uniquely, also received in-office family therapy as part of their

treatment. Those who received in-office family therapy included more males (84%) and fewer

females (16%), but were essentially the same in average age (14.2 years, range 7–18) than the no

family therapy group. Ethnicity included Caucasians (68%), African-Americans (28%), and

fewer Hispanics (4%) with no Native American or Asian youth. There were no statistically

significant differences between the demographic descriptions of the youth in the three groups.
 Family Therapy Research 20
The average cost of health care for youth receiving no family therapy was $16, 260.

For those receiving in-office family therapy, the average cost was $11,116. Youth who received

in-office family therapy received $5,144 (32%) less care on average than those receiving only

individual therapy. Those who received in-home family therapy averaged $1,622 over the

follow-up the period. Those who received in-home family therapy were least expensive of all,

averaging at least 85% less than any form of in-office therapy and 90% less than those who had

no family therapy.

_______________________________________________________________________

Insert Table 3

About Here

________________________________________________________________________

The second study addressed the costs of treating adults with schizophrenia (Christenson,

Crane & Hillin, in review). Past research has shown that family intervention with schizophrenic

patients are effective when included as a component of treatment. Despite a number of studies

investigating the effect of pharmacotherapy on costs, there has been little attention given to the

effect of family intervention on health care costs. In this study, data from the Kansas Medicaid

systems was used to test two structural models of health care costs for 164 patients with

schizophrenia who had participated in family intervention. The results showed that a model

which included direct and indirect effects of family intervention provided the best fit to the data.

The results also provided support for the hypothesis that family intervention is associated with a

decrease in overall health care costs. Specifically, each family therapy intervention was

associated with a significant $586 decrease in total health care costs. Interestingly, the provision

of other psychotherapy treatments increased costs. For each psychotherapy treatment delivered
 Family Therapy Research 21
(other than family intervention), hospital costs increased a significant $99. In terms of overall

medical costs, each “other” psychotherapy treatment service was associated with an increase of

$77 in overall health care costs.

Results from the Medicaid system data suggest that including family therapy in the

treatment program for adolescents does not increase the costs of health care. Surprisingly, in-

home family therapy was associated with youth who used fewer medical services than either of

the other two groups. In-office family therapy was least common, but also was associated lower

health care costs than youth who did not experience any form of family therapy.

In the second study, results suggest that family involvement does not increase total health

care costs. Indeed, there may be a reduction in total health care costs when families are involved

in care.

C. CIGNA Behavioral Health, the behavioral health division of a large national US health

insurance company with several million subscribers.

Psychotherapy costs data for all billed mental health disorders over a four year period

were extracted. In all over 600,000 individual psychotherapy bills were available for analysis.

Preliminary results suggest that across all mental disorders and diagnoses, persons who received

family or couples’ treatment required an average of 37% less psychotherapy than those who

received individual therapy (Prohofsky, 2005).

D. Medicare Cost Projection study.

In addition to direct studies of health care organizations, a specific cost projection of

including family therapists in a large national health service (Medicare) was conducted

(Christenson & Crane, 2004). Although not projection of adding a service, it focused on the cost

of adding a specific group of new providers to an existing health care system.

 Family Therapy Research 22
Medicare is a large national provider of health care services in the United States.

Beneficiaries are approximately 43 million senior adults and disabled adults. Medicare provides

a comprehensive range of medical and mental health services.

This study sought to estimate the cost of adding approximately 39,000 independently

licensed Marriage and Family Therapists to panels of mental health providers. Historical trends

were determined using psychotherapy cost and use data for the years 1999 through 2001 and

projections for the years 2002 through 2006 were made with marriage and family therapists

included as providers. The estimated net increase in cost due to adding MFT’s was $2.1 million

per year for the entire USA, less than one-tenth of 1 % of Medicare mental health budget. This

amount is well within measurement error and thus constitutes a nonsignificant potential increase

in Medicare expenditures.

E. Family Therapy Training Clinic

This clinic is housed at Brigham Young University and provides approximately 10,000

hours of low cost individual, group, marital/couple and family therapy each year. Therapists are

students in masters and doctoral programs in marriage and family therapy, clinical psychology

and social work. For the purposes of the present discussion, only clients seen by family therapy

trainees are included.

Health care use data was collected at three times. First, at the beginning of therapy,

second six months after therapy began and finally at one year after the beginning of therapy.

Data was taken from two different sources. First the self reports of family members, and their

reports of their spouses’ and oldest child’s health care use. Second, the number and type of

health care visits was also obtained from the medical charts of participants provided by their

primary care physician.

 Family Therapy Research 23
Study one (Christenson, Crane, Marshall, & Schaalje, in preparation), investigated the

influence of therapist experience level in producing an offset effect for persons receiving

marital/couple or family therapy services. The number of self reported health care visits before

and at one year after the beginning therapy was compared (N = 112). Results demonstrate a 37%

decrease in health care use when comparing health care use before and after treatment.

Study two (Jakubowski, Crane, & Christenson, in preparation), focused on the basic

research issue of self reported medical use versus chart reviews of medical records. In other

words, are the self reports and reports about other family members significantly correlated, to the

degree that self and family reports could eliminate the need for chart reviews when doing family

based research?

For self reports, the number of self-reported health care visits was significantly related to

medical charts (r = .541, p < .001, n = 147). In addition, spousal reports on their partner’s

medical use, was significantly positively correlated with medical records (r = .665, p < .001, n =

149). Finally, parents’ reports of their children’s medical use was significantly positively

correlated with medical records (r = .703, p < .001, n = 42).

Overall, treatment provided by family therapy trainees was associated with decreased

heath care use at a level at least as high as that provided by professional therapists. In addition,

self report and family reports of health care use are good substitutes for hand review of medical

charts.

Summary and Conclusions:

The efficacy and effectiveness research related to family therapy has demonstrated good

experimental outcomes. In addition, reductions in health care use have been documented,

especially for high utilizers of health care after participating in family therapy. Also, including
 Family Therapy Research 24
family therapy in health care programs does not seem to increase overall health care costs. If

these results are replicated in additional studies, health care managers may wish to allow family

therapy to be provided to those who request such service, or who may benefit from this form of

therapy.

There are, of course, a number of limitations to the effectiveness research presented here.

First, cause-and-effect relationships cannot be established, only true experimental designs can

establish such relationships. Fortunately the efficacy research presented has demonstrated cause

and effect relationships for experimental forms of couples and family therapy.

Second, for the effectiveness research, direct comparisons between groups who received

different forms of therapy, or received treatment from different providers are not appropriate.

There are undoubtedly pre-existing differences between persons and families who received

different forms of treatment, and from different providers. However, these results are interesting

and suggestive of effectiveness when family therapy is applied to different real world situations

and that costs probably will not be accelerated.

In terms of the efficacy research, experimental design with random assignment to groups

makes direct comparisons possible. In most cases, family therapy has produced results better

than no treatment control groups and results as good as, if not better than, other forms of

psychotherapy.

Clinical Implications:

The main implications for clinicians are related to advocacy and policy. Health care

policies are set by a number of different types of people acting in different roles. Often, they seek

input from senior and other managers, payers, users and respected providers. Policy makers may

be interested in the information this research provides, but are less likely to spend time
 Family Therapy Research 25
considering it unless consumers or respected providers bring it to their attention.

One can only imagine the amount of information related to all forms of medical care that

policy makers, managers and payers must process on a regular basis. It might be possible, but it

is probably unlikely that they are updated regularly on the effectiveness research on the costs of

family therapy. It seems that the best mechanism of providing information to influential policy

makers can be from providers and users of the service.

Another group of highly influential people who may want to be educated are past users of

family therapy services. The purpose is not to exploit families for selfish purposes. Rather, it is

to give a “voice” to those whom mental health services policies are designed to benefit.

Especially when families have sought, received and benefited from family therapy services that

were not provided by their health care plans. Plans that they have helped pay for, either directly

through payroll deductions, or indirectly through taxation. It would seem that families should be

able to choose to receive family therapy services if they choose, and especially when mental

health services are already available in their health care plans.

Clinicians who wish to advocate for the inclusion of family therapy in general can do so

themselves. But it is also possible to encourage families they work with to do the same. Certainly

such encouragement should occur only after treatment and without using coercive or unethical

methods. Policy makers do listen to families who wish to come forward and share their stories.

Also, few large health service provider companies or organizations s are able to do

quality assurance survey of their subscribers for a service they do not as yet cover. Hence they

are unlikely to uncover the value-to users-of family therapy services in their regular quality

assurance processes.

In summary, given that family therapy has been shown to be effective in numerous
 Family Therapy Research 26
reviews and that including in health care systems does not seem to increase health care costs,

now may be the time to begin to educate policy makers and begin to offer this form of care to

families who desire to receive it.

 Family Therapy Research 27
References

Alexander, J., Barton, C., Gordon, D., Grotpeter, J., Hansson, K., Harrison, R., et al. (1998).

Blueprints for violence prevention, book three: Functional Family Therapy. Boulder, CO:

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1973). Short-term behavioral intervention with delinquent

families: Impact on family process and recidivism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81,

219-225.

Alexander, J. F., & Sexton, T. L. (2002). Functional Family Therapy (FFT) as an integrative,

mature clinical model for treating high risk, acting out youth. In J. Lebow (Ed.),

Comprehensive handbook of psychotherapy, volume IV: Integrative/Eclectic (pp. 111-

132). New York: John Wiley.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders: Text revision (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Baucom, D. H.., Shoham, V., Mueser, K. T., Daiuto, A. D., & Stickle, T. R. (1998). Empirically

supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health

problems. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 53-88.

Beach, S. R. H., & O’Leary, K. D. (1992). Treating depression in the context of marital discord:

Outcome and predictors of response for marital therapy versus cognitive therapy.

Behavior therapy, 23, 507-528.

Bray, J., & Jouriles, E. (1995). Treatment of marital conflict and prevention of divorce. Journal

of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 461-473.

 Family Therapy Research 28
Campbell, T. L. (2006). Improving health through family interventions. In D. R. Crane & E. S.

Marshall (Eds). Handbook of Families and Health: Interdisciplinary Perspectives:

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carr, A. (2000a). Evidence-based practice in family therapy and systemic consultation I: Child-

focused problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 29-60.

Carr, A. (2000b). Evidence-based practice in family therpay and systemic consultation II: Adult-

focused problems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 273-295.

Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously

delinquent youths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family

Care, 2, 21-36.z

Chamberlain, P., & Mihalic, S. (1998). Blueprints for violence prevention, book eight:

Multidimensional treatment foster care. Bolder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention

of Violence.

Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to

incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 66, 624-633.

Christenson, J. D., & Crane, D. R. (2004). Estimating the Cost of Direct Reimbursement of

Marriage and Family Therapy under Medicare. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,

30 (4), 515-525.

Christenson, J. D., Crane, D. R., & Hillin, H. H. (in review). Family Intervention and Health

Care Costs for Kansas Medicaid Patients with Schizophrenia.

 Family Therapy Research 29
Christenson, J. D., Crane, D. R., Marshall, E. M., & Schaalje, G. B. (in preparation). The

Effect of Marital and Family Therapy on Health Care Use in a University Based

Training Clinic.

Cottrell, D. & Boston, P. (2002). Practitioner Review: The effectiveness of systemic family

therapy for children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

43 (5), 573-586.

Crane, D. R. (1996). Fundamentals of Marital Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Crane, D.R., & Christenson, J. D., (in review) The Medical Offset Effect: Patterns in Medical

Utilization Reductions for High Utilizers of Health Care.

Crane, D. R., Hillin, H. H., & Jakubowski, S. (2005) .Costs of Treating Conduct Disordered

Medicaid Youth with and without Family Therapy. The American Journal of Family

Therapy. 33 (5), 403-413.

Crane, D. R., Wood, N. D., Law, D. D., & Schaalje B. (2004) The relationship between therapist

characteristics and decreased medical utilization: An exploratory study. Contemporary

Family Therapy: An International Journal, 26, (1), 61-69.

Donohue, B., Azrin, N., Lawson, H., Friedlander, J., Teicher, G., & Rindsberg, J. (1996).

Improving initial session attendance of substance abusing and conduct disordered

adolescents: A controlled study. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 8, 1-

13.

Dunn, R. & Schwebel, A. (1995). Meta-analytic review of marital therapy outcome research.

Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 58-68.

Edwards, M., & Steinglass, P. (1995). Family therapy treatment outcomes for alcoholism.

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 475-509.

 Family Therapy Research 30
Eisler, I., leGrange, D., & Asen, E. (2002). Family Interventions. In J. Treasure, U. Schmidt &

E. van Furth (Eds.), Handbook of Eating Disorders (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley

Emanuels-Zuurveen, L., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (1996). Individual behavioral-cognitive therapy

vs. marital therapy for depression in maritally distressed couples. British Journal of

Psychiatry, 169, 181-188.

Estrada, A. U., & Pinsof, W. M. (1995). The effectiveness of family therapies for selected

behavioral disorders of childhood. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 403-440.

Ewart, C. K., Taylor, C. B., Kraemer, H. C., & Agras, W. S. (1984). Reducing blood pressure

reactivity during interpersonal conflict: Effects of marital communication training.

Behavior Therapy, 15, 473-484.

Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G. R., & O’Farrell, T. J. (1996). Behavioral couples therapy for male

substance-abusing patients: Effects on relationship adjustment and drug-using behavior.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 959-972.

Fals-Stewart, W., O’Farrell, T. J., & Birchler, G. R. (1997). Behavioral couples therapy for male

substance-abusing clients: A cost outcomes analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 65, 789-802.

Foley, S., Rounsaville, B., Weissman, M., S., Holomaskas, D., & Chevron, E. (1990). Individual

versus conjoint interpersonal therapy for depressed patients with marital disputes.

International Journal of Family Psychiatry, 10, 29-42.

Gordon, D. A., Arbuthnot, J., Gustafson, K. E., & McGreen, P. (1988). Home-based behavioral-

systems family therapy with disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. American Journal of

Family Therapy, 16, 243-255.

 Family Therapy Research 31
Haasen, C., Prinzleve, M. Zurhold, H., Rehm, J., Güttinger, F., Fischer, G. et al. (2004).

Cocaine use in Europe-A multi-centre study. European Addiction Research, 10, 139-146.

Hazelrigg , M. D., Cooper, H. M., & Borduin, C. M. (1987). Evaluating the effectiveness of

family therapies: An integrative review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 428-

442.

Henggeler, S. W., Clingempeel, W. G., Brondino, M. J., & Pickrel, S. G. (2002). Four-year

follow-up of multisystemic therapy with substance-abusing and substance-dependent

juvenile offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 41, 868-874.

Henggeler, S. W., Pickrel, S. G., Brondino, M. J., & Crouch, J. L. (1996). Eliminating (almost)

treatment dropout of substance abusing or dependent delinquents through home-based

multisystemic therapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 427-428.

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B.

(1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New

York: Guilford.

Henggeler, S. W., & Sheidow, A. J. (2002). Conduct disorder and delinquency. In D. H.

Sprenkle (Ed. ), Effectiveness research in marriage and family therapy (pp. 27-52).

Alexandria, VA: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

Hinshaw, S., Klein, R., & Abikoff, H. (1998). Childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder:

Nonpharmacological and combination approaches. In P. Nathan and J. Gorman (Eds), A

Guide to Treatments that Work (pp. 26-41). New York: Oxford University Press.
 Family Therapy Research 32
Jacobson, N. S., Dobson, K., Fruzzetti, A. E., Schmaling, K. B., & Salusky, S. (1991). Marital

therapy as a treatment for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59,

547-557.

Jakubowski, S. F., & Crane, D. R., & Christenson, J. D. (in preparation). Marriage and family

therapy research in health care: Investigating the accuracy of self and family members

reports of medical visits.

Kelley, M. L., & Fals-Stewart, W. (2002). Couples- versus individual-based therapy for alcohol

and drug abuse: Effects on children’s psychosocial functioning. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 70, 417-427.

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers. Psychological

Bulletin, 127, 472-503.

Keefe, F., Murray, P. & Calwell, D. (1992). Spouse assisted coping skills training in the

management of osteoarthritic knee pain. Arthritis Care and Research, 9, 279-291.

Law, D. D., & Crane, D. R. (2000). The influence of Marital and Family Therapy on health

care utilization in a Health Maintenance Organization. Journal of Marital and Family

Therapy, 26 (3), 281-291.

Law D. D., Crane, D. R., & Berge, J. M. (2003) The Influence of Marital and Family

Therapy on High Utilizers of Health Care. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29,

(3), 353-363.

Liddle, H. A. (2002). Advances in family-based therapy for adolescent substance abuse: Finding

from the Multidimensional family Therapy research program. In L. S. Harris (Ed.),

Problems of Drug Dependence 2001: Proceeding of the 63rd Annual Scientific Meeting
 Family Therapy Research 33
(NIDA Research Monograph No. 182, NIH Publication No. 02-5097, pp. 113-115).

Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Napier, A, Y., & Whitaker, C. (1978). The family crucible. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Prohofsky, J. A. (2005) Relational Therapies and Managed Care. Plenary presented at the

annual conference of The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,

Kansas City, KS.

Radojevic, V., Nicassio, P., & Weisman, M. (1992). Behavioural intervention with and without

family supports for rheumatoid arthritis. Behaviour Therapy, 23, 13-30.

Ramstedt, M. (2002). Alcohol consumption and the experience of adverse consequences-A

comparison of six European countries. Contemporary Drug Problems, 29, 549-575.

Santisteban, D. A., Szapocznik, J., Perez-Vidal, A., Kurtines, W. M., Murray, E. J., & LaPerriere

A. (1996). Efficacy of intervention of engaging youth and families into treatment and

some variables that may contribute to differential effectiveness. Journal of Family

Psychology, 10, 35-44.

Shadish, W. R., & Baldwin, S. A. (2003). Meta-analysis of MFT interventions. Journal of

Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 547.

Shadish, W. R., Montgomery L. M., Wilson P., Wilson M. R., Bright I., & Okwumabua T.

(1993). Effects of family and marital psychotherapies: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 992-1002.

Sprenkle, D. H. (Ed.) (2002) Effectiveness Research in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Alexandria, VA: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

 Family Therapy Research 34
Stanton, M. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1997). Outcome, attrition, and family-couples treatment for

drug abuse: A meta-analysis and review of the controlled, comparative studies.

Psychological Bulletin, 122, 170-191.

Stratton, P. (2005). Report On The Evidence Base of Systemic Family Therapy. Association

for Family Therapy.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2005, September). Results from

the 2004 national survey on drug use and health: National findings. Retrieved November

7, 2005, from http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/trends.htm#Use

Waldron, H. B. (1997). Adolescent substance abuse and family therapy outcome: A review of

randomized trials. In T. H. Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical child

psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 199-234). New York: Plenum Press.

 Family Therapy Research 35

Table 1 Results when comparing pre and post therapy utilization rates in a HMO:

Type of Therapy N of subjects % Change in Health Care

MFT Combined 272 -21.5*

Marital/Couple 52 -21

FTIP 60 -9.5

FTOP 60 -30.5

Individual 60 -10

Comparison group 60 +12.2

*= p < .05
 Family Therapy Research 36

Table 2 Results when comparing pre and post therapy utilization rates for high utilizers

Type of Therapy N of subjects % Change in Health Care

MFT Combined 43 -53*

Marital/couple 15 -50*

FTIP 12 -50*

FTOP 16 -57*

Individual 22 -48*

*p = < .05
 Family Therapy Research 37

Table 3 Total health care costs for conduct disordered youth

Type of Therapy N of Subjects Total Average Health Care Costs

No family therapy 3,086 $16,260*

In-office family therapy 503 $11,116*

In-home family therapy 164 $ 1,622*

*p = < .01

View publication stats