Misplaced Evidence? A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Clinicians’ Reflections on the Connection Between Psychotherapy Research and Practice
Abstract
The gap between research and clinical practice, known as the scientist-practitioner gap, poses a persistent challenge in clinical psychology. Although existing research suggests that effective engagement with research can be challenging for clinicians, there is limited understanding of the specific barriers, obstacles, and potential solutions as perceived by clinicians themselves. In this focus group study, we explored junior clinicians' perceptions, attitudes, and interactions with clinical research, specifically targeting Dutch mental health psychologists following postgraduate training (n = 32). Through reflexive thematic analysis, we investigated their relation to research in clinical psychology, their perceived value of research, barriers to engagement, and suggestions for the future. Clinicians reported multiple barriers including difficulties in accessing, understanding, and applying research in practice, as well as skepticism about its relevance. We summarize clinicians’ personal opinions and motivations regarding research, systemic issues such as insufficient organizational support, research priorities not matching demands in practice, and methodological limitations of conventional psychotherapy research. With this study, we stressed the need for enhanced communication between researchers and clinicians, methodological considerations, and greater inclusion of clinicians’ perspectives in research processes.
Versions
Related
- Effortful Eyelid Opening With Enhanced Mechanoreceptor Stretch in the Superior Tarsal Muscle Accelerates Inferred Microsaccade Frequency and Velocity, Exacerbating Reflexive Frequent Blinking: A Report of Two Cases
- Qualitative content analysis vs reflexive thematic analysis: methodological comparison and key procedures for data analysis
- Psychotherapy remains a human endeavor: Human therapy is valued more than AI-integrated therapy
- Psychotherapy and Teletherapy in U.S. Latinx Populations: A Narrative Review
- Simulating Psychotherapeutic Sessions with Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Proof-of-Concept Study of In Silico Psychotherapy Research
BibTeX
@misc{schwarzbach2026misplaced,
title = {{Misplaced Evidence? A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Clinicians’ Reflections on the Connection Between Psychotherapy Research and Practice}},
author = {Nina Schwarzbach and Merle-Marie Pittelkow and Lisa Kiltz and Sarah Tol and Rink Hoekstra and Theo Bouman and Marieke Pijnenborg},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/au7pc_v1},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/au7pc_v1/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Misplaced Evidence? A Reflexive Thematic Analysis of Clinicians’ Reflections on the Connection Between Psychotherapy Research and Practice
AU - Nina Schwarzbach
AU - Merle-Marie Pittelkow
AU - Lisa Kiltz
AU - Sarah Tol
AU - Rink Hoekstra
AU - Theo Bouman
AU - Marieke Pijnenborg
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/au7pc_v1
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/au7pc_v1/
AB - The gap between research and clinical practice, known as the scientist-practitioner gap, poses a persistent challenge in clinical psychology. Although existing research suggests that effective engagement with research can be challenging for clinicians, there is limited understanding of the specific barriers, obstacles, and potential solutions as perceived by clinicians themselves. In this focus group study, we explored junior clinicians' perceptions, attitudes, and interactions with clinical research, specifically targeting Dutch mental health psychologists following postgraduate training (n = 32). Through reflexive thematic analysis, we investigated their relation to research in clinical psychology, their perceived value of research, barriers to engagement, and suggestions for the future. Clinicians reported multiple barriers including difficulties in accessing, understanding, and applying research in practice, as well as skepticism about its relevance. We summarize clinicians’ personal opinions and motivations regarding research, systemic issues such as insufficient organizational support, research priorities not matching demands in practice, and methodological limitations of conventional psychotherapy research. With this study, we stressed the need for enhanced communication between researchers and clinicians, methodological considerations, and greater inclusion of clinicians’ perspectives in research processes.
ER -