The key components of a clinical psychology formulation: A consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: Psychological formulation is a key competency for clinical psychologists. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the key components and processes of formulation that are hypothesized to contribute to poor reliability of formulations. The aim of this study was to develop consensus on the essential components of a formulation to inform training for clinical psychologists and best practice guidelines. METHODS: A Delphi methodology was used. Items were generated from the literature and discussed and refined with a panel of experts (n = 10). In round one, 110 clinical psychologists in the United Kingdom rated the importance of components of formulation via an online questionnaire. Criteria for consensus were applied and statements were rerated in round two if consensus was not achieved. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 30 items, with 18 statements regarding components of a formulation and 12 statements regarding formulation process. Items that clinicians agreed upon emphasized the importance of integrating sociocultural, biological, strengths and personal meaning alongside well-established theoretical frameworks. Consensus was not reached on 20 items, including whether a formulation should be parsimonious or adhere to a model. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide mixed evidence regarding consensus on the key components of formulation. There was an agreement that formulation should be client-led and incorporate strengths and sociocultural factors. Further research should explore client perspectives on the key components of formulation and how these compare to the clinicians' perspectives.

Understanding the Factors That Contribute to Creating a Collaborative Psychological Formulation: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

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.