Mental health care equity and access: A group therapy solution.

Mental health services are experiencing unprecedented levels of demand from clients during COVID resulting in longer wait lists and therapist burnout. As Nemoyer et al. (2019) point out, minorities experience a higher burden of mental illness while having less access and lower quality treatments. COVID has increased demands for mental health services even further, creating bottlenecks of care, therapist burnout, and leading to ever longer wait lists. This article will argue that inefficient supply of services is created by mental health providers being incentivized toward individual therapy. Group therapy offers a solution because it is a "triple E treatment"-efficient, effective, and equivalent to individual therapy in terms of outcomes (Burlingame & Strauss, 2021). Group interventions also address systemic racism and the needs of minorities who have been marginalized and cope with minority stress. This article will utilize a labor and financial impact analysis to demonstrate how increasing group therapy by 10% nationally, particularly in private practice and primary care integration settings, would increase treatment access for over 3.5 million people while reducing the need for 34,473 additional new therapists and simultaneously saving over $5.6 billion. It will discuss how incentivizing groups while holding therapists accountable for training, competency when working with people from diverse backgrounds, and outcomes can result in improved efficiency. This will allow therapists greater freedom to collaboratively select the most effective treatments for those from underserved and minority backgrounds and create easier access to quality treatments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Therapists-in-training experiences of working with transfer clients: One relationship terminates and another begins.

Data from interviews with 12 graduate-level trainees about their experiences of working with clients who had been transferred to them from another therapist were analyzed using consensual qualitative research. Trainees reported a range of helpful and hindering aspects about the transfer experience related to the client (e.g., client had experienced a prior termination and transfer, client had severe character pathology), the prior therapist (e.g., prior therapist prepared client for transfer, prior therapists did not process their termination with client), themselves (e.g., participant was open to addressing grief, participant was fearful of rejection), supervision (e.g., the supervisor provided important feedback on dealing with loss, the supervisor failed to address the unique nature of transferring), training (e.g., there was not adequate readings on termination and transfer, there was no readings on transfers), and clinic practices (e.g., meeting with the prior therapist and current therapist facilitated process, having clients end treatment with debt hindered the development of the new relationship). Participants also provided recommendations for improving the transfer process. Implications of these findings for clinical practice, training, and research are addressed. (PsycINFO Database Record