Long-Term Psychoanalytic Treatments (LTPT) include both long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy (LTPP) and psychoanalysis (PsAn). Current opinion seems to be that there is some evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP, but none for that of PsAn. This may be due in part to researchers not balancing the level of evidence of randomized controlled studies (RCTs), cohort studies, and pre-post studies with patients’ acceptance of these various research designs used in studying the effectiveness of LTPT. After a review of the merits of eight possible control conditions for LTPT in RCTs and cohort studies, and a consideration of the limitations and merits of pre-post studies, it was found that RCTs pair high levels of evidence with limited degrees of patient acceptance, especially where PsAn is concerned. Cohort studies appear to provide at most a moderate level of evidence. Their acceptability is hardly better than that of RCTs, as it depends on the acceptability of control conditions similar to those of RCTs. The acceptability of pre-post studies is much better, but they can provide, at most, a moderate level of evidence. Apart from randomization, they can meet all methodological criteria for high-quality research (often they do not, but there are ways to correct this). In summary, in the long-term treatment of complex mental disorders with LTPT, RCTs often pair a high level of evidence with limited patient acceptance of the method. Compared to RCTs, cohort studies show a lower level of evidence without much gain in acceptability. Pre-post studies pair the highest level of acceptability with the lowest level of evidence of the three designs. Limited acceptability is not to be confused with no acceptability, nor moderate level of evidence with none

The feasibility of using a randomized design in a psychoanalytic outcome study was evaluated. Our hypothesis was that it would be feasible to randomize patients to psychoanalysis three or four times weekly on the couch for five years, supportive expressive therapy once or twice weekly for up to forty sessions, and cognitive behavior therapy once or twice weekly for up to forty sessions. Successful randomization was defined as a 30% recruitment rate among eligible patients. Recruitment began in September 2009 and closed in April 2010. A total of 132 subjects responded to study advertisements, 107 of whom (81%) were triaged out. The remaining 25 were scheduled for the first of two clinical interviews, and 21 of 25 (88%) completed the interview. Eleven of the 25 (44%) were determined to be eligible based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eight of the 11 accepted the idea of randomization and completed the diagnostic assessment phase. Calculated on the basis of 8 of 11 eligible patients accepting randomization, the 95% confidence interval was that 39% to 92% of eligible subjects would participate in a larger study of this design. Our findings support the feasibility of implementing an RCT comparing psychoanalysis as defined by the American Psychoanalytic Association (three or four times weekly on the couch for approximately five years) with shorter-term dynamic or cognitive behavioral therapy once or twice a week. Pre-treatment characteristics of these eight patients are presented, as are initial reliability data for the treatment adherence scales used in this trial.

This article tells the story of the development of an outcome study of psychoanalysis and describes the debate that took place over critical methodological issues. The protocol committee included career psychotherapy researchers who have conducted rigorous outcome studies, clinical psychoanalysts, study methodologists, and a statistician with clinical trial expertise. The committee worked for two years to develop the study design. This project is based on the premise that clinical psychoanalysis is a treatment. Areas specifically addressed are the goals and hypothesis of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, choice of psychotherapies as comparison treatments, definition of treatments and selection of therapists, use of medication, development of a treatment adherence measure, randomization of patient assignment vs. patient self-selection, and primary outcome measures. The execution of this outcome study will require significant effort and resources. A positive result would boost the standing of psychoanalysis, but the results may not support the primary hypothesis that there are therapeutic benefits unique to psychoanalysis and that psychoanalysis can effect demonstrable changes in a patient’s mental life and adaptation that are not achieved by treatments of different orientation and/or lesser intensity. However, more important than whatever specific results emerge is what executing such a study requires of our field: the process of addressing the clinical issues that a study design requires, the creation of a network of analysts around the country working on a common project, and the joining of the clinical psychoanalytic community with a community of psychodynamic researchers.