English
English

Multi-person Settings in Psychotherapy

Capturing feasibility and barrier factors

Project overview

The implementation of the multi-person setting (MPS), as a standard setting of systemic therapy, has so far appeared to be a challenge in practice financed by health insurance funds. There are a whole range of reasons for and against its application: In addition to bureaucratic factors, these are primarily concerns - not only on the part of clients and key carers, but also on the part of therapists themselves. In particular, these have potentially unpleasant effects on the therapeutic process and on existing relationships (Sheperd, 2014; McFarlande et al., 2003; Oelkers-Ax, 2019; Fadden, 2006).

Items for an online questionnaire were created for this project. With its help, participants from different study groups select the items that are most important to them. Factor analyses (EFA, CFA) then provide a basis for the appropriate summarisation of items and interpretation.

Link to the questionnaire.

Further information

  • Duration: Since 2022
  • Funding: own funds
  • Responsible: Chair of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy III
  • Cooperation partner: Family Dynamics

Study groups sought

  • Psychotherapists in systemic licence training
  • Psychotherapists with systemic full licence to practice
  • Patients in psychotherapy
  • Relatives/important caregivers of patients
  • Supervisors for systemic therapy
  • Heads of institutions/outpatient clinics and systemic therapy clinics

Selected publications

  • Braus, N., Flückiger, C., Wichmann, J., Frankmann, C., & Hunger-Schoppe, C. (2024). Is symptom outcome the whole story? - A multilevel meta-analysis of Systemic Therapy for adults including family outcome. Psychotherapy Research, Sep 9:1-14. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2024.2394192.
  • Hunger-Schoppe, C., Schweitzer, J., Hilzinger, R., Klewinghaus, L., Deußer, L., Sander, A., Bents, H., Mander, J. & Lieb, H. (2022). Integrative systemic and family therapy for social anxiety disorder: Manual and pilot randomised controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.867246.
  • Hunger, C., Hilzinger, R., Klewinghaus, L., Deusser, L., Sander, A., Mander, J., Bents, H., Ditzen, B., & Schweitzer, J. (2020). Comparing cognitive behavioral therapy and integrative systemic psychotherapy for social anxiety disorders: randomised controlled pilot trial (SOPHO-CBT/ST). Family Process, 59(4), 1389-1406, https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12492.
  • Hermans, E. (2022). Settings of systemic therapy: individual therapy, couple and sex therapy, family therapy, multi-person setting. In R. Hanswille (Ed.). Basic knowledge of systemic therapy (pp. 133-145). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Hunger-Schoppe, C. (2021). Systemic therapy. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
  • Mcfarlane, W., Dixon, L., Lukens, E., & Lucksted, A. (2003). Family psychoeducation and schizophrenia: A review of the literature. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 29, 223-245. doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2003.tb01202.x
  • Oelkers-Ax, R. (2019). "I wouldn't have done it voluntarily..."-Experiences with coercive contexts and forced stays in a family psychiatric and psychotherapeutic day clinic. Practice of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 68(4), 253-270. doi.org/10.13109/prkk.2019.68.4.253
  • v. Schlippe, A., & Schweitzer, J. (2019). Knowing how, knowing why. The logic of systemic interventions. Vandenhoeck & Rupercht.
  • Shepherd, M. (2014). Do primary care psychological therapists 'think family'? Challenges and opportunities for couple and family therapy in the context of 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapies' (IAPT) services. Journal of Family Therapy, 36(1), 39-61. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00559.x
  • Fadden, G. (2006). Training and disseminating family interventions for schizophrenia: developing family intervention skills with multi-disciplinary groups. Journal of Family Therapy, 28(1), 23-38. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2006.00335.x

Project management