09/07/2026
W naszym najnowszym artykule opisujemy procedurę rekrutacji do badania długoterminowej analitycznej psychoterapii grupowej. Odpowiadamy w nim na pytanie, jak prowadzić randomizowane badania w tego typu pracy psychoterapeutycznej. W podsumowaniu artykułu przedstawiamy opis dobrych praktyk – zachęcamy do lektury!
Serdecznie dziękujemy przychodni Centrum Terapii Dialog za otwartość na badania nad psychoterapią i gotowość do wsparcia.
Prowadzenie tego typu badań nie jest proste – wymaga wsparcia administracyjnego, finansowego (bez grantu NCN nie byłoby to możliwe) oraz zaangażowania wspaniałego zespołu psychoterapeutów/ek i stażystów/tek.
Zachęcamy do lektury i śledzenia kolejnych etapów naszych badań.
Chrzczonowicz-Stępień, A., Czajkowska-Łukasiewicz, K., Adamska, Z., Kardasz, M., & Zajenkowska, A. (2026). Integrating research and therapeutic aims in long-term group-analytic treatment for personality disorders: A case study on patient selection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/capr.70190
ABSTRACT
Background
The increasing prevalence and clinical complexity of personality disorders creates a growing demand for long-term psychotherapeutic interventions. Nevertheless, the literature provides little guidance on how to select and allocate patients to long-term group treatment in a way that preserves an appropriate clinical balance within the group while simultaneously fulfilling methodological standards required for empirical investigation.
Aims
The present study examines the allocation of patients with personality difficulties and disorders to two conditions of long-term group-analytic treatment: standard group analysis and a combined approach integrating mentalisation-based psychoeducational training (MBT-I) with group analysis.
Materials and Methods
A total of 123 participants (ages 18–58, M = 32.67, SD = 9.55) were recruited through a private psychotherapy centre. The study reports the criteria for group eligibility, the assessment instruments employed, and the procedures used for patient allocation. Particular attention is given to the clinical and methodological challenges involved in appropriate patient selection and the practical limitations of achieving randomisation in long-term group treatments for personality disorders.
Results
The two treatment conditions did not differ significantly in demographic or clinical characteristics, indicating that stratified randomisation was feasible within these constraints. However, individuals admitted to treatment presented with lower levels of personality functioning—especially in the domain of self-functioning—compared to those excluded.
Discussion and Conclusion
These findings point to the inherent tensions between clinical requirements and research design in studies of long-term group psychotherapy and offer methodological considerations grounded in both empirical data and clinical experience.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings of this study carry several important implications for clinical practice, service organisation and research policy concerning long-term group psychotherapy for individuals with personality disorders.
First, the study demonstrates that stratified randomisation based on clinically meaningful, dimensional characteristics—such as for example internalising versus externalising tendencies—can successfully balance methodological rigour with therapeutic integrity. This has policy relevance for institutions and funding bodies that increasingly require RCT-level evidence but often underestimate the constraints inherent in long-term group psychotherapy.
Second, the observation that patients with lower levels of personality functioning were more likely to be admitted to treatment suggests that traditional exclusion criteria in group therapy may warrant revision. Clinical guidelines and service policies often favour higher-functioning patients, which inadvertently restricts access for individuals with more complex personality difficulties.
Third, the results highlight the need for greater transparency and standardisation in the clinical consultation and selection procedures used in both group therapy practice and psychotherapy research. The discrepancies between expected and actual characteristics of excluded participants reveal that existing tools and criteria may not fully capture clinically relevant dimensions such as motivation, frustration tolerance and transference–countertransference processes. Institutions and training programs should encourage the combined use of standardised instruments and semi-structured consultations to ensure more consistent, theoretically informed and ethically grounded decision-making.
Fourth, the findings call for ethical and policy reconsideration of wait-list control conditions in long-term psychotherapy research. Given the substantial time commitment and clinical needs of individuals with personality disorders, providing alternative treatments rather than deferring care aligns better with contemporary standards for ethical research and patient rights.
Finally, the two-layered assignment method tested in this study offers a practical model for future trials and can inform policy guidelines on psychotherapy research design. By separating stratified patient allocation from the subsequent assignment of groups to specific treatment modalities, researchers can maintain both internal validity and the structural coherence necessary for group therapy. Adoption of such hybrid methods at institutional or policy levels could significantly enhance the feasibility of rigorous studies on complex, long-term psychotherapeutic interventions.
