New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Psychiatric Drugs Replacing Talk Therapy

As drugs move in, talk therapy moves out

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In the 1960s, the heyday of psychoanalysis, psychiatrists often saw their patients five days a week. But the number of psychiatrists today who focus on talk therapy is dwindling, according to a recent study that analyzed trends in psychiatry offices across the U.S. The study’s authors determined that between 1996 and 2005 the percentage of psychiatry office visits involving psychotherapy decreased from about 44.4 percent—already a significant decline from the 1980s—to 28.9 percent.

One of the main causes for this 35 percent reduction in psychotherapy, the study’s authors say, is the increasing availability of psychiatric medications with few adverse effects. As patient demand for these medications has increased over the years, they argue, many psychiatrists have had their hands full managing patients’ prescriptions, leaving the talk therapy—if it happens at all—to nonmedical therapists, such as psychologists and social workers. The authors suggest that insurance companies may encourage this arrangement by reimbursing less for psychotherapy sessions and more for medication management sessions, which tend to be shorter.

All these changes, the authors point out, have left psychiatrists wondering what their place is in the mental health field. “I think what these data show is a profession in transition,” says Mark Olfson, a psychiatrist and public health researcher at Columbia University and co-author of the study. “The role of the psychiatrist is changing, and the impact of that on patient outcomes is really an open question.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Historically, psychiatrists have managed all aspects of patients’ care, and many psychiatrists who trained heavily in psychoanalytical techniques contend that such an all-­inclusive care model works best for patients. Others favor a split-care model, preferring to handle the medical side of patient care and delegating psychotherapy to nonmedical professionals. “We find there are really two kinds of psychiatrists now,” says Ramin Mojtabai, the study’s other author and a researcher at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

It is not yet clear whether one care model benefits patients more than the other does, although some studies indicate, at least for disorders such as depression, that a combination of both psychotherapy and medication works better than either treatment alone. So psychiatrists who want to be involved in their patients’ psychotherapy need to make some changes to keep treatment financially feasible for patients, Olfson says. Many psychiatrists have started forming group practices with psychologists, which allows them to play a role in their patients’ therapy with fewer reimbursement issues from insurance companies.

Both patients and clinicians stand to gain from an office environment that integrates the biomedical perspective of psychiatrists with the more behavioral perspective of psychologists, says Mojtabai, who holds degrees in both disciplines. “Psychologists and psychiatrists look at problems somewhat differently and can work well together to help the patient,” he notes.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Psychiatry in Flux".

Erica Westly is an author and journalist based in Seattle. Her work has appeared in Scientific American, Nature Medicine and the New York Times, among other outlets.

More by Erica Westly
SA Mind Vol 19 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Psychiatry in Flux” in SA Mind Vol. 19 No. 6 (), p. 14
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1208-14b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe