Six Decisions That Make Psychotherapy Treatment Planning Clinically Useful

INDEPENDENT SCHOLARSHIP · Not peer-reviewed

Cody Thomas Rounds, M.A.

Clinical Psychologist-Master

A treatment plan is an argument for action

A treatment plan should explain why a particular course of action makes sense for this person now. Listing a diagnosis, a measurable objective, and an intervention may satisfy a documentation requirement without making that argument visible. If improvement does not occur, the plan may offer little guidance about whether to intensify treatment, change its focus, address a practical obstacle, or reconsider the outcome itself.

I propose organizing treatment planning around six decisions. The presenting difficulty specifies what is happening. The formulation explains a plausible maintaining process. The outcome identifies what worthwhile change would mean. The indicator makes some aspect of that change observable. The intervention specifies what will be attempted. The revision rule states how new information will alter the plan. Their relationship is the central contribution: each decision should constrain and inform the others.

These components are familiar in good psychotherapy practice. The framework does not claim that existing treatment planning ignores them or that naming six decisions establishes a new therapy. Its purpose is to make a useful standard of reasoning explicit, teachable, and open to correction. A clinician can use it within different evidence supported approaches without adopting one universal explanation of psychological change.

The evidence supporting the components

Collaborative planning has a relational foundation. Agreement about goals and tasks belongs within the working alliance (Bordin, 1979), and meta analytic research associates goal consensus and collaboration with psychotherapy outcome (Tryon et al., 2018). These findings support meaningful participation, while leaving open how best to negotiate a particular treatment decision. Shared decision making adds a process for discussing options, preferences, and choices (Elwyn et al., 2012). Its implementation in mental health also requires attention to power, service conditions, and practical barriers (Slade, 2017).

Case formulation provides a bridge between the presenting problem and intervention. An individualized formulation organizes hypotheses that can guide treatment and be revised with new information (Persons, 2008). Functional analytic models similarly connect behavior, maintaining variables, and individualized treatment decisions (Haynes et al., 1997). Research on cognitive formulation has found better agreement on descriptive material than on more inferential elements (Kuyken et al., 2005). A coherent explanation should therefore remain a hypothesis rather than become certain through repetition.

Formulation quality can be improved through training. A study comparing clinicians who received brief generic formulation training with those who did not found differences in the rated quality and elaboration of their formulations (Kendjelic & Eells, 2007). That result concerns formulation quality, not proof that any written formulation improves patient outcomes. The distinction matters for the six decisions: greater clarity is an intended process benefit whose clinical consequences still require examination.

Measurement based care involves using assessment information to inform treatment, rather than collecting scores for their own sake (Fortney et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2019). A meta analysis of progress feedback found a small average benefit for symptom reduction, with substantial variation in methods and settings (de Jong et al., 2021). A cluster randomized trial in psychological services linked feedback alerts to review of patients who were not on track (Delgadillo et al., 2018). Together, this literature supports a feedback process, not the assumption that adding questionnaires automatically improves care.

Decision 1 Define the presenting difficulty

The plan begins with a description that a client and clinician can examine. “Anxiety” may identify an important symptom domain while leaving the practical difficulty unspecified. Avoiding meetings, spending hours checking messages, and becoming distressed before sleep may require different initial targets. The description should include context, frequency or pattern, consequences, and the person's priorities without requiring premature precision.

The presenting difficulty should also distinguish the client's concern from someone else's request. A partner may want the client to become more agreeable; an employer may want greater output; a referral may ask for symptom reduction. These requests can be clinically relevant without automatically becoming the treatment's purpose. Clarifying whose concern is being addressed reduces the risk that collaboration will consist of asking the client to endorse an externally chosen aim.

Decision 2 Develop a provisional formulation

The formulation proposes why the difficulty persists and what might change it. For example, repeated checking may reduce immediate uncertainty while preventing the person from learning that ordinary uncertainty is tolerable. A different case may involve genuine task ambiguity, memory difficulties, a punitive environment, or several interacting conditions. A symptom label alone cannot choose among these explanations.

The useful question is what evidence would distinguish the alternatives. Does checking increase after criticism? Does clarifying task requirements change the pattern? Is the behavior present in low consequence situations? The clinician should name what remains uncertain and avoid presenting the formulation as an established mechanism. Demonstrating a mechanism requires evidence beyond showing that a hypothesized process and outcome change together (Kazdin, 2007). An individual clinical formulation is a guide to inquiry, not a causal experiment.

Decision 3 Select a meaningful outcome

An outcome describes what the person hopes to regain, develop, or protect. It might be participating in necessary meetings without prolonged avoidance, completing useful work within reasonable limits, or responding to conflict with greater choice. Symptom reduction can be meaningful in its own right, but a symptom score should not silently replace the person's reason for seeking help.

Selecting an outcome includes discussing tradeoffs. A client may value professional advancement while wanting more time with family. A plan that maximizes one without examining the other may be precise and still unwanted. The clinician contributes information about plausible options and limitations, while the client's preferences shape what counts as benefit. Agreement is revisited when symptoms, circumstances, or priorities change.

Decision 4 Choose an observable indicator

An indicator is evidence about the outcome, not the outcome's complete meaning. A validated symptom measure, a behavioral record, a functional rating, or a clearly defined individualized observation may each contribute. Selection depends on what the indicator can detect, how burdensome it is, and whether repeated measurement will influence the behavior being observed. More data are not necessarily more informative.

Reliable change and clinically meaningful change are also different questions. The former concerns whether a change is larger than expected measurement error under specified assumptions; the latter concerns its practical or clinical significance (Jacobson & Truax, 1991). A small score difference should not be celebrated as recovery simply because it moves in the desired direction. Conversely, a client may make a meaningful functional change before a broad symptom total shifts substantially.

The plan should explain foreseeable ambiguities. Fewer social events could indicate less compulsive obligation or greater withdrawal. Lower reported distress could reflect improvement, disengagement, or reluctance to disappoint the therapist. Interpretation needs the formulation and the person's account. An indicator that improves while the person feels less free is a reason to reconsider what is being measured.

Decision 5 Specify the intervention

The intervention states what the clinician and client will actually do and why it fits the hypothesis. A broad label such as cognitive behavioral therapy may identify an evidence informed approach without explaining the immediate task. The plan should connect the proposed action to the maintaining process and indicate the level of evidence supporting it. It should also identify what the client prefers and whether the task is feasible.

Implementation requires separate consideration. A person may understand an assignment but lack privacy, time, access, or the necessary skill. Capability, opportunity, and motivation offer a useful way to organize those questions (Michie et al., 2011). Implementation outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and fidelity are distinct from clinical outcomes (Proctor et al., 2011). If a task did not occur, the clinician should understand why before concluding that the therapeutic hypothesis has failed or the client is resistant.

Decision 6 Agree on a revision rule

The final decision makes the plan responsive to evidence. It specifies when progress will be reviewed, what information will matter, and which conditions call for earlier reconsideration. A review date alone is insufficient if the default response to every result is more of the same treatment. A useful rule distinguishes continuing a helpful course from adapting an impractical task or revisiting an unsupported explanation.

Revision should include unwanted effects. A conceptual account of psychotherapy side effects distinguishes adverse treatment reactions from other unwanted events (Linden, 2013). A large national survey also found that some recipients reported lasting negative effects, although retrospective self report could not establish causation (Crawford et al., 2016). These findings justify asking about harm and burden rather than assuming that distress during treatment is either always necessary or always evidence of damage.

The rule should be proportionate. A brief intervention may need a simple check after several sessions. A complex or higher consequence decision may require more explicit monitoring and consultation. The point is an agreed route for learning, not a rigid schedule that overrides changing clinical circumstances.

Decision	Core question	Error made visible
Presenting difficulty	What pattern is causing concern and for whom?	Treating a label or another person's agenda
Provisional formulation	What may maintain the pattern?	Choosing an intervention without an explanatory link
Meaningful outcome	What change would be worthwhile?	Measuring an outcome the client does not endorse
Observable indicator	What information would show movement?	Confusing a convenient metric with benefit
Intervention	What will be attempted and why?	Prescribing an action that is irrelevant or infeasible
Revision rule	What findings would change the plan?	Continuing without examining nonresponse or harm

A worked hypothetical example

The following case is constructed to demonstrate the decisions and their revision. It is not a clinical record, treatment recommendation for an identifiable person, or evidence of effectiveness. An adult client seeks help for low mood and increasing isolation. A superficial plan might aim to increase social activity by a fixed number of contacts each week. The six decisions initially produce a more specific account.

The presenting difficulty is that the client has stopped responding to two valued friends and spends most evenings alone after work. Invitations initially produce a sense of burden, followed by relief when declined and sadness later. Assessment considers symptoms, functioning, and relevant risks. The client wants a renewed sense of connection, while rejecting the idea of becoming more socially busy simply to appear well.

The provisional formulation proposes that withdrawing provides immediate relief from anticipated effort and disappointment while reducing access to valued experiences. Competing explanations include exhaustion, an unspoken conflict with a friend, and the demands of caring for a relative. The clinician and client agree to examine these possibilities rather than presume that every declined invitation reflects the same maintaining process.

The meaningful outcome is having some chosen, sustaining contact with important people. Initial indicators include whether one manageable contact occurs, anticipated and experienced burden, and the client's report of connection afterward. A validated symptom measure provides broader context but does not replace the relational outcome. The selected frequency is a practical trial, not an established threshold for recovery.

The initial intervention is a collaboratively selected brief contact with one trusted friend. The client records expected effort and likely consequences, then compares these expectations with the experience if contact occurs. The action fits the provisional withdrawal hypothesis and the client's preferences. The revision rule is to examine implementation and consequences after a short trial, with earlier discussion if distress, risk, or burden increases.

At review, the planned contact has not occurred. Discussion reveals that the chosen time coincided with an unpredictable caregiving responsibility and that the client felt unable to cancel once a plan was made. This does not establish that the intervention would be ineffective if attempted. The task was poorly matched to opportunity. The next decision concerns a more feasible form of contact and permission to renegotiate it without global self criticism.

Later, contact frequency increases, but the client describes the conversations as an obligation and conceals distress to reassure others. The count has improved while the meaningful outcome has not. Review returns to what connection requires, including the ability to be honest and choose the relationship. Without that return, the plan might incorrectly declare success because a behavioral target was reached.

A different branch would arise if meaningful contact improved while the symptom total remained unchanged. The clinician would examine the discrepancy, the time course, and other symptoms rather than assume either treatment failure or full recovery. If well implemented tasks repeatedly increased burden without benefit, the intervention or formulation would require reconsideration. The six decisions locate the uncertainty rather than supply an automatic solution.

What the framework adds beyond a completed template

A conventional plan can contain all six decisions and work very well. The proposal therefore adds no presumed advantage merely through terminology. Its potential advantage is that it requires explicit connections: the intervention follows a hypothesis, the indicator represents an outcome, and review can revise the hypothesis or the outcome rather than simply update a target date. This makes the plan useful when the course becomes uncertain.

The framework also differentiates reasons for nonresponse. The aim may be unwanted, the explanation mistaken, the indicator insensitive, the action infeasible, the intervention ineffective despite implementation, or the burden excessive. These possibilities call for different responses. Collapsing them into “insufficient progress” encourages either blaming the client or changing treatment without understanding what happened.

For supervision, the six decisions provide concrete questions. A supervisor can ask which observation supports the proposed maintaining process, whether an intervention was attempted, or what the client considers worthwhile. This is more specific than asking whether the plan is sufficiently individualized. It also permits disagreement about clinical reasoning without pretending that every uncertainty can be settled from the written record.

For clients, the framework can make treatment easier to understand. They need not learn its terminology. They should be able to explain what they are working on, why a task has been proposed, what change matters to them, and how the plan can be altered. The clinician remains responsible for appropriate assessment and intervention; collaboration does not transfer professional obligations to the client.

Limits and directions for evaluation

The complete framework has not been validated as a method for improving outcomes. Its components draw on different literatures, and combining supported ideas does not automatically produce an effective package. Initial evaluation could examine whether clinicians and clients understand the rationale better, whether plans distinguish implementation from response more accurately, and whether revision occurs when warranted. Subsequent studies could examine clinical outcomes, burden, and unintended effects.

Documentation demands can also distort the framework. Requiring lengthy entries for all six decisions at every session would turn a guide to reasoning into another administrative burden. Some decisions remain stable while others change. The written plan should be sufficient to support the work, with detail proportionate to uncertainty and consequences. Clinical flexibility is one of its intended products.

Conclusion

Treatment planning becomes more clinically useful when it makes the reasoning behind action visible and revisable. The six decisions organize established practices into a connected account of the problem, its possible maintenance, the desired change, the evidence of movement, the chosen task, and the conditions for revision. Their value lies in helping a clinician and client understand what to reconsider when treatment does not unfold as expected. A measurable goal earns its place in that account by informing a meaningful decision.

References

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. doi:10.1037/h0085885

Crawford, M. J., Thana, L., Farquharson, L., Palmer, L., Hancock, E., Bassett, P., Clarke, J., & Parry, G. D. (2016). Patient experience of negative effects of psychological treatment: Results of a national survey. British Journal of Psychiatry, 208(3), 260–265. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.114.162628

de Jong, K., Conijn, J. M., Gallagher, R. A. V., Reshetnikova, A. S., Heij, M., & Lutz, M. C. (2021). Using progress feedback to improve outcomes and reduce drop-out, treatment duration, and deterioration: A multilevel meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 85, 102002. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102002

Delgadillo, J., de Jong, K., Lucock, M., Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Gilbody, S., Ali, S., Aguirre, E., Appleton, M., Nevin, J., O'Hayon, H., Patel, U., Sainty, A., Spencer, P., & McMillan, D. (2018). Feedback-informed treatment versus usual psychological treatment for depression and anxiety: A multisite, open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(7), 564–572. doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30162-7

Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., Edwards, A., & Barry, M. (2012). Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361–1367. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6

Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., & Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for measurement-based care. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201500439

Haynes, S. N., Leisen, M. B., & Blaine, D. D. (1997). Design of individualized behavioral treatment programs using functional analytic clinical case models. Psychological Assessment, 9(4), 334–348. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.9.4.334

Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12

Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 1–27. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091432

Kendjelic, E. M., & Eells, T. D. (2007). Generic psychotherapy case formulation training improves formulation quality. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(1), 66–77. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.44.1.66

Kuyken, W., Fothergill, C. D., Musa, M., & Chadwick, P. (2005). The reliability and quality of cognitive case formulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43(9), 1187–1201. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.08.007

Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M., Puspitasari, A., Navarro, E., Howard, J., Kassab, H., Hoffman, M., Scott, K., Lyon, A., Douglas, S., Simon, G., & Kroenke, K. (2019). Implementing measurement-based care in behavioral health: A review. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(3), 324–335. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329

Linden, M. (2013). How to define, find and classify side effects in psychotherapy: From unwanted events to adverse treatment reactions. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20(4), 286–296. doi:10.1002/cpp.1765

Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

Persons, J. B. (2008). The case formulation approach to cognitive-behavior therapy. Guilford Press.

Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

Slade, M. (2017). Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 146–153. doi:10.1002/wps.20412

Tryon, G. S., Birch, S. E., & Verkuilen, J. (2018). Meta-analyses of the relation of goal consensus and collaboration to psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 372–383. doi:10.1037/pst0000170

AI Use Disclosure

Artificial intelligence tools were used throughout the development and preparation of this manuscript to support research, critical analysis, writing, revision, and editorial review. ChatGPT-4 Clinicians (OpenAI) was used to support clinical research exploration, literature review, critical reflection, conceptual development, and the drafting, writing, and rewriting of manuscript content. Gemini (Google) was used to evaluate manuscript organization, conceptual consistency, internal coherence, clarity of argument, and overall scholarly presentation. Grammarly (Superhuman) was used for proofreading, grammatical correction, language refinement, and editorial review. All AI-assisted contributions were subject to author review and editorial judgment. AI-generated content was not treated as independent empirical evidence, a substitute for source verification, or scholarly validation. The author retains full responsibility for the manuscript's intellectual contributions, clinical interpretations, factual accuracy, scholarly claims, references, conclusions, and final published content. The use of artificial intelligence does not constitute independent peer review.

AI Tools Referenced

Google. (2026). Gemini [Large language model]. https://gemini.google.com/

OpenAI. (2026). ChatGPT [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/

Superhuman. (2026). Grammarly [AI-powered writing assistance software]. https://www.grammarly.com/