Asian international psychotherapist's experiences of client's microaggression in therapy.

Much of the multicultural counseling literature focuses on how White or U.S.-born therapists can work effectively with clients of color. However, with the increasing number of racial minority and international therapists and trainees, there is a need to expand the multicultural counseling literature to acknowledge and center the experiences of therapists and trainees of color, particularly the experiences of Asian international therapists. Specifically, a greater understanding and guidelines are needed regarding how Asian international therapists handle clients' xenophobia, racism, and microaggressions in therapy. This qualitative study interviewed 11 licensed practicing Asian international psychotherapists within the United States about their experiences of client-initiated microaggressions in therapy. Consensual qualitative research was used to analyze interview data. Results indicated four domains pertaining to Asian international psychotherapists' experiences in therapy: xenophobia, microaggression, impact, and strategy. Participants reported complex negative impacts of xenophobia and microaggressions on their well-being as well as the therapeutic relationship and treatment outcomes. Additionally, participants identified the difficulty and complexity of addressing client-initiated microaggressions in session. Implications for training and practice as well as suggestions for future research are provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Including culture in programs to reduce stigma toward people with mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries.

Stigma is one of the main barriers for the full implementation of mental health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Recently, many initiatives to reduce stigma have been launched in these settings. Nevertheless, the extent to which these interventions are effective and culturally sensitive remains largely unknown. The present review addresses these two issues by conducting a comprehensive evaluation of interventions to reduce stigma toward mental illness that have been implemented in LMICs. We conducted a scoping review of scientific papers in the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, OVID, Embase, and SciELO. Keywords in English, Spanish, and Portuguese were included. Articles published from January 1990 to December 2017 were incorporated into this article. Overall, the studies were of low-to-medium methodological quality-most only included evaluations after intervention or short follow-up periods (1-3 months). The majority of programs focused on improving knowledge and attitudes through the education of healthcare professionals, community members, or consumers. Only 20% (5/25) of the interventions considered cultural values, meanings, and practices. This gap is discussed in the light of evidence from cultural studies conducted in both low and high income countries. Considering the methodological shortcomings and the absence of cultural adaptation, future efforts should consider better research designs, with longer follow-up periods, and more suitable strategies to incorporate relevant cultural features of each community.

Does the group in group psychotherapy matter? A meta-analysis of the intraclass correlation coefficient in group treatment research.

OBJECTIVE: Over the last 3 decades, group treatment researchers have become increasingly knowledgeable of the impact of within-group dependency on analyses of group treatment data and of mutual influence processes that occur within therapy groups. Despite these advancements, there remains a lack of consensus on the magnitude of mutual influence, or group effects, in group treatment research. As such, this study sought to estimate the size of group effects on members' posttreatment outcomes by meta-analyzing the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) in group treatment research. In addition, we tested several moderators of the ICC, including outcome type, outcome reactivity, outcome specificity, group format, treatment length, and group size. METHOD: Using robust variance estimations, we meta-analyzed 169 effect sizes from 37 group treatment studies. RESULTS: Findings indicated an average ICC of 0.06. Group size, group format, treatment length, outcome specificity, and outcome type did not significantly moderate the ICC; however, we did find evidence to suggest that the ICC varies as a function of outcome reactivity, with observer-rated outcome measures resulting in the largest ICC. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that interdependence in group treatment research is an important concept both theoretically and statistically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).