Second Edition

Interpersonal
Psychotherapy
A Clinician’s Guide

Scott Stuart MD
Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Michael Robertson FRANZCP

Director of the Mayo Wesley Centre for Mental Health, Taree,
New South Wales, Australia

137545_FM_IN_PSYCHO_i-xx.indd i 30/04/12 4:40 PM

 3
The Structure of Interpersonal
Psychotherapy
Introduction 45
Assessment/Initial Phase 46
Middle Phase 46
Conclusion of Acute Treatment 46
Maintenance Treatment 47
IPT and the Biopsychosocial/Cultural/Spiritual model 48
IPT Problem Areas 49
The Benefits and Limitations of Structured Psychotherapies 50
Conclusion 52
References 52

Introduction
This chapter is a brief overview of the structure of interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT),
emphasizing a view of the forest rather than the trees. IPT is divided into four segments: the
Assessment/Initial Phase, the Intermediate Phase, the Conclusion of Acute Treatment, and
Maintenance Treatment (Figure 3.1).

IPT structure

Assessment/Initial phase
1–3 sessions

Middle phase 4–12 sessions

Conclusion of Acute Treatment 1–2 sessions

Maintenance Treatment Per contract

Figure 3.1 The structure of IPT

In the Assessment/Initial Phase, the therapist makes a determination about the patient’s
suitability for IPT. If IPT is indicated, the therapist completes an Interpersonal Inventory,
develops an Interpersonal Formulation and negotiates a Treatment Agreement with the
45

Interpersonal Psych.indb 45 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 The Structure of Interpersonal Psychotherapy

patient. In the Middle Phase, the therapist and patient work at resolving the patient’s
interpersonal problems (the three IPT Problem Areas) using IPT techniques. When
Concluding Acute Treatment, the therapist and patient review progress as well as planning
for future problems. Maintenance IPT should be arranged by the patient and therapist
depending on the patient’s history, severity of distress, and risk for relapse. The Conclusion
of Acute Treatment can be tapered so that sessions are less frequent as the conclusion
approaches.

Assessment/Initial Phase
The first purpose of the Assessment/Initial Phase is to determine if the patient is a suitable
candidate for IPT, and to determine whether IPT is the best treatment. During the assessment
the therapist should focus on the patient’s presenting problems and attachment style,
and should ask about specific instances of interpersonal interaction in order to begin to
understand the patient’s typical style of communication. Much of this can be accomplished
by constructing an Interpersonal Inventory.
The Assessment/Initial Phase of IPT includes a number of specific tasks. The primary
goals are to construct an Interpersonal Inventory (Chapter 5) and to develop an Interpersonal
Formulation, a detailed hypothesis describing and explaining the patient’s interpersonal
difficulties (Chapter 6). A Treatment Agreement should be established with the patient
to proceed with IPT, and to work on several specific interpersonal problems. Note that
the agreement, in contrast to a rigid contract, is flexible, so that a range of acute treatment
sessions can be negotiated rather than a fixed number.

Middle Phase
In the Middle Phase of IPT the therapist and patient work together to resolve the patient’s
Interpersonal Disputes, to adjust to his Role Transitions, or to deal with Grief and Loss
issues. In general, after identifying one or more Interpersonal Problem Areas during the
Assessment/Initial Phase, the therapist gathers more information about the patient’s specific
Interpersonal Problems. Both patient and therapist then work collaboratively to develop
solutions to each, usually coming in the form of improving the patient’s communication skills
or modifying his expectations about a relationship conflict. A suitable option is selected,
and then the patient attempts to implement it between sessions. The patient and therapist
then work in subsequent sessions to refine the solution and to further assist the patient to
implement it if he has had difficulty in carrying it out completely.
The hallmark of the Middle Phase of IPT is a lot of implementation and practice. The key
in IPT (as in all therapies) is practice and persistence.

Conclusion of Acute Treatment

The Conclusion of Acute Treatment is a mutually negotiated ending of the intensive time-limited
part of IPT. It includes a review of the patient’s progress in resolving the interpersonal problems
first identified in the Interpersonal Inventory and planning for these and others which may arise in
the future. The patient’s (and the therapist’s) reactions to the conclusion should be acknowledged so
that they can be discussed if needed. If IPT is done well, however, the option to taper the frequency
of sessions during the Conclusion of Acute Treatment can be utilized so that the transition to
Maintenance is seamless and does not cause the patient distress.

46

Interpersonal Psych.indb 46 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 Maintenance Treatment

Maintenance Treatment
A specific agreement regarding the provision of Maintenance Treatment should always be
negotiated with all patients, though this can vary a great deal depending on the patient’s risk
for relapse and need for ongoing care. In cases where a patient’s problems are likely to be
recurrent, the patient and therapist should develop an agreement to meet for more frequent
maintenance sessions (such as monthly) to monitor ongoing interpersonal problems and
to help the patient continue to work on his interpersonal skills. In contrast, if the patient’s
risk for relapse is low, and his current episode has been mild, the therapist and patient may
choose to meet once every 6 months, or even just to have phone or email contact if needed.
The scheduling of maintenance IPT sessions requires clinical judgment based on risk and
need for longitudinal care. The critical tactic in IPT is simply to have a crystal clear agreement
about ongoing contact based on clinical judgment – all patients will benefit from the
continuity of care that is provided.
IPT is not a terminable therapy, i.e. it does not come to a complete and final end at the
Conclusion of Acute Treatment. IPT is structured so that it comes to a conclusion because
all of the empirical data point to the need for Maintenance Treatment for most patients.
Maintenance Treatment may differ in frequency and intensity based on the individual
patient’s needs, but it should be provided nonetheless.
The evidence is very clear that affective and anxiety disorders are relapsing and remitting
disorders. In addition, IPT has been demonstrated to be a very effective maintenance
treatment,1,2 and it has also been shown that the frequency of Maintenance Treatment can be
flexible, as equivalent outcomes resulted when weekly, biweekly, and monthly maintenance
sessions were compared.3 The logical evidence-based conclusion is that Maintenance
Treatment should be flexible and based on the needs of the individual patient for whom it
is being provided. IPT is much more effective if it is tailored to the individual rather than
attempting to use it as a one-size-fits-all approach.
In addition, in contrast to the plethora of theoretical writing on the subject, there is no
evidence that terminating psychotherapy leads to better outcomes.4 Given the well-known
risk for relapse, terminating therapy is simply poor clinical practice. Moreover, despite
therapists’ occasional wishes to the contrary, terminating therapy is in reality nothing more
than semantics: there is absolutely nothing to prevent a distressed patient from paying a
visit to your office the day immediately following termination, nothing to prevent him from
presenting with a new crisis, and nothing to prevent him from suing you if you refuse to
treat him again. Clinicians in settings in which the number of sessions are arbitrarily limited
by convention are well aware of the many ingenious ways that patients (and therapists) can
circumvent the termination rules.
Terminating therapy after a fixed number of sessions is also an affront to the quality
of care that virtuoso IPT clinicians should be providing. No ethical or compassionate
clinician would terminate IPT after 16 sessions if the patient was still symptomatic
and would benefit from a few more sessions. No reasonable clinician would terminate
therapy the session after a patient has had a miscarriage or has been diagnosed with
cancer or has been assaulted or has experienced any of the innumerable tragic events
that randomly occur in life. It would be nice to guarantee that nothing adverse would
disrupt the life of a patient as they are coming to the end of treatment, but life happens.
And it sometimes happens near the originally agreed upon end of treatment. And if it
does happen then, treatment should be extended. Use your common sense and clinical
judgment (Box 3.1).

47

Interpersonal Psych.indb 47 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 The Structure of Interpersonal Psychotherapy

Box 3.1 The structure and components of IPT

Assessment/Initial Phase
● Evaluate the suitability of the patient for IPT
● Evaluate the suitability of IPT for the patient
● Assess psychiatric and interpersonal problems
● Construct an Interpersonal Inventory
● Develop an Interpersonal Formulation
● Identify specific IPT Problem Areas: Disputes, Role Transitions, Grief and Loss
● Explain the rationale for IPT
● Collaboratively establish a Treatment Agreement

Middle sessions
● Attend to the therapeutic relationship
● Maintain the focus of discussion on the specific IPT Problem Area(s)
● Explore the patient’s expectations and perceptions of the specific interpersonal

problem(s)
● Help the patient to develop solutions to the interpersonal crises

● Help the patient to implement the proposed solutions

● Practice, practice, practice

Conclusion of Acute Treatment

● Review the patient’s progress
● Anticipate future problems
● Positively reinforce the patient’s gains
● Establish a specific agreement for Maintenance Treatment

Maintenance Treatment
● Focus on Problem Areas
● Monitor progress

IPT and the Biopsychosocial/Cultural/Spiritual

model
IPT is based on the Biopsychosocial/Cultural/Spiritual model of psychological
functioning, expanding beyond the Biopsychosocial model described in the first
iteration of this book5 and the long discarded and antiquated medical model.
Biological diatheses in conjunction with early life experiences and attachment style
lead to vulnerabilities in individual patients. Cultural and spiritual factors may also
be vulnerabilities or strengths. Coupled with a sufficiently intense interpersonal
stressor, individuals without adequate social support are likely to develop interpersonal
difficulties. This explanatory model of distress is depicted in the Interpersonal Triad in
Figure 3.2.
The structure used in IPT is directly linked to Attachment and Interpersonal Theory.
The IPT therapist focuses on the patient’s interpersonal relationships, particularly the way
in which the patient’s attachment is manifest in them. The therapist also examines the
communication style that the patient uses in initiating, maintaining, and disengaging from
relationships. This occurs within the time-limited Acute Treatment format of IPT, and
focuses on here-and-now resolution of symptoms and distress rather than on the patient–
therapist relationship.

48

Interpersonal Psych.indb 48 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 IPT Problem Areas

Interpersonal Triad

Acute Interpersonal Crisis

Attachment and
Biopsychosocial/
DISTRESS Cultural/Spiritual
vulnerabilities

Inadequate social support

Figure 3.2 Interpersonal triad

IPT Problem Areas

IPT focuses on three specific Problem Areas which reflect the interpersonal nature of the
treatment. These are: Grief and Loss, Interpersonal Disputes, and Role Transitions. Psychosocial
stressors from any of the Problem Areas, when combined with an attachment disruption
in the context of poor social support, can lead to interpersonal problems, psychiatric
syndromes, or distress. The Problem Areas should be used as guidelines, not rigid categories.
They are simply a way of focusing treatment as it proceeds.
● Though often understood as a reaction to the literal death of a significant other, the Grief

and Loss Problem Area in IPT can best be conceptualized as any loss experienced by the
patient. That loss, whatever it may be, should be defined by the patient, not the therapist. It is
the therapist’s job to understand the patient and his perspective, not to force it into a par-
ticular category. Thus if the patient conceptualizes his experience as a Grief and Loss issue,
then it is. Common sense and therapeutic graciousness should prevail in a therapist who
wishes to do IPT well. In addition to loss through death, losses such as divorce may be seen
by the patient as Grief and Loss issues. Loss of physical functioning, such as that following
a heart attack or traumatic injury, may also be considered in the Grief and Loss Problem
Area.6 Anticipatory grief in the setting of a terminal illness, or the anticipation of the death
of a loved one, such as with caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease, are additional
examples. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to use the Grief and Loss category – it is simply
a way to focus treatment on the specific interpersonal problem.
● Interpersonal Disputes involve a conflict between the patient and another person, and may

result from either the communication problems or unrealistic expectations of either. Like
grief and loss, disputes should be patient defined.
● Role Transitions, as the name suggests, involve changes in a patient’s social role and the

changes in social support which may accompany such transitions. These include not only
life-phase transitions, such as adolescence, childbirth, and aging, but also include many
social changes such as leaving home, getting married, or changes in school or job status.

49

Interpersonal Psych.indb 49 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 The Structure of Interpersonal Psychotherapy

Therapists familiar with previous work in IPT will note that the Problem Area formerly
known as interpersonal sensitivity or interpersonal deficits is no longer used in IPT. The
reason is that these concepts describe a longstanding attachment style in the fearful range of
attachment rather than an acute interpersonal crisis. There are patients with this style, and
without doubt, they are more difficult to treat. They are difficult because they have a paucity
of interpersonal support, and because it is difficult to form a therapeutic alliance with them.
All of the IPT literature notes that these individuals are more complex, and that prognosis is
not as good.5,7–9 It is their fearful attachment style that leads to this complexity.
Therefore interpersonal sensitivities or deficits are best understood as a
characteristic style of attachment in which the patient has difficulty forming satisfying
interpersonal relationships. The poor social support network which is a consequence of
this style often leads the patient to be more likely to become distressed when an acute
interpersonal problem occurs. The acute problem – the Role Transition, Interpersonal
Dispute, or Grief and Loss issue – should be the primary focus of IPT rather than the
fearful attachment style. The fearful attachment style, manifested as sensitivities or
difficulties in establishing relationships, is an additional psychological factor just like all
of the other attachment styles, and it influences the way the patient will react to an acute
interpersonal stressor.
There is always an acute crisis that leads a patient to seek treatment. Even if there have
been longstanding attachment problems or a paucity of social relationships, something acute
happens which finally leads a patient to make the decision to seek help – to seek therapy.
It may be the death of a family member, it may be the loss of a job, it may be a perceived
personal rejection, but something acute tips the balance just enough for the patient to make
the decision to go to treatment. It is this crisis that should be the focus of treatment.
While the Problem Areas are very helpful as a means of focusing the patient on specific
interpersonal problems, it is important for the therapist to be flexible when using them.
Rather than providing the patient with the proper Problem Area ‘diagnosis’, the Problem
Areas should be used primarily as tools to maintain focus upon one or two interpersonal
problems, particularly as the time available in IPT for Acute Treatment is limited. The
patient’s view of the nature of the problem should be used – for example, if the patient feels
that his recent divorce is a Grief issue rather than a Role Transition, then the Grief and Loss
Problem Area should be used. The therapeutic alliance should not be sacrificed in order to
impose the ‘correct’ Problem Area ‘diagnosis’ upon the patient.
The therapist should also be mindful that the interpersonal problems experienced
by patients are similar in that they are all derived from the combination of an acute
interpersonal stressor combined with a social network that does not sufficiently support
them. In addition to addressing the specific problem, effort should always be directed
towards improving patients’ social support.

The Benefits and Limitations of Structured

Psychotherapies
One of the more useful ways to describe psychotherapeutic approaches is to draw a
distinction between ‘structured’ and ‘unstructured’ psychotherapies. Psychotherapeutic
interventions can be placed on a spectrum on this dimension, with most of the short-term
treatments at the more structured end of the scale, and most of the analytically oriented
therapies at the other. There are obvious benefits and limitations to both structured
and unstructured approaches – the point is to consider how specific treatments best

50

Interpersonal Psych.indb 50 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 The Benefits and Limitations of Structured Psychotherapies

meet the needs of a given patient. Table 3.1 compares the ‘structured’ and ‘unstructured’
psychotherapies.

Table 3.1 Characteristics of structured and unstructured therapies

Structured Unstructured

Examples IPT, cognitive behavioral therapy Psychoanalysis, self-psychology

(CBT)

Time frame Time-limited Open-ended

Focus Improved functioning Psychodynamic change and

insight

Therapeutic

Relationship Supportive, active Non-transparent, Passive

Discussions Directed primarily by therapist Directed primarily by patient

Transference Not a point of intervention Primary point of intervention

A helpful way of conceptualizing the place of IPT and other more structured
psychotherapies in clinical practice is to compare them with pharmacologic treatments
for physical problems such as diabetes or hypertension. From this point of view, IPT can
literally be ‘prescribed’ as an appropriate and indicated treatment for the patient’s specific
problem. For example, the structure of IPT lends itself to a prescriptive treatment in a fashion
analogous to the use of antibiotic therapy for pneumonia. Most patients with pneumonia
require a structured course of antibiotics that is time limited and specific to one bacterial
pathogen; this treatment is usually highly effective in resolving the illness. There are, however,
a few patients who are prone to recurrent infections or who are immunosuppressed. These
patients require longer term use of multiple agents, with marked variations in dosing and
time course.
To carry the analogy further, all patients who are treated for acute pneumonia – literally
all of them – receive maintenance care as well. A primary care physician would never
‘terminate’ treatment; instead, he would schedule the patient for a follow-up visit a week or
two later, invite the patient to call him if the problem recurred, and would ensure that the
patient was scheduled for a routine physical exam at some point in the future depending on
the patient’s age, health profile, and risk for additional problems. A primary care physician
uses his clinical judgment and continues to care for his patient.
Similarly, many patients who present for mental healthcare tend to have acute and
specific problems, and will benefit from an acute intervention. In these cases, a structured
intervention like IPT is likely to offer the greatest benefit in a limited time frame. As in
primary care, the IPT therapist should ensure that appropriate maintenance treatment is
provided to all patients. In contrast, those patients who require ongoing and less structured
interventions, such as those with severe and complex trauma experiences, profound
disturbance in personality functioning, or severely debilitating mood or psychotic disorders,
will likely require longer term and more transference-based psychological treatments.
Borrowing further from this analogy, the concept of ‘dose–response’ can also be applied
to the more structured psychotherapies. There is evidence that benefits to the patient
accrue exponentially during the first 5–10 sessions of psychological interventions, with an

51

Interpersonal Psych.indb 51 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 The Structure of Interpersonal Psychotherapy

attenuation of improvement thereafter.10 Though there continue to be benefits with more

sessions, the amount of additional improvement appears to diminish with each additional
session. Thus the benefit or ‘response’ to treatment must be considered in light of the ‘dose’ or
number of sessions that are provided.
Research also suggests that there is a rapid decline in clinic attendance and continuation
in psychotherapeutic treatments after 5–10 sessions.11,12 One study found that 40 per cent
of appointments with psychiatrists are ‘one-off ’ (i.e. only one session), and that the average
number of visits to a psychiatrist for a given patient is approximately seven.13 There seems
to be a brief window of opportunity for most patients, and that window opens when they
experience an acute crisis that leads them to seek treatment. This window of opportunity is
often best entered with a structured and time-limited treatment like IPT that focuses on the
acute crisis.
Research aside, it is an unfortunate fact that the current climate of rationed healthcare
and the emphasis on cost-effective treatments has had a profound effect on the healthcare
system. If anything, this situation has gotten worse since the original iteration of our book in
2003; no doubt it will continue to be an issue for the foreseeable future. While there are many
advantages to more open-ended treatments, IPT and other more structured interventions
can often be provided within the constraints of managed care systems. IPT is also well suited
to this environment because there is evidence supporting its efficacy, a point of emphasis for
managed care.

Conclusion
The structure of IPT is one of its key virtues. However, maintaining structure should not
supersede the fact that the patient’s unique needs are of primary concern. A course of IPT that
adheres concretely to a manual at the expense of the patient’s needs is almost certain to be a
less effective treatment than that provided by a flexible therapist who follows the principles of
IPT using clinical judgment.

References
1. Frank E. Interpersonal psychotherapy as a maintenance treatment for patients with
recurrent depression. Psychotherapy, 1991, 28: 259–266.
2. Frank E, et al. Three-year outcomes for maintenance therapies in recurrent depression.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 1990, 47(12): 1093–1099.
3. Frank E, et al. Randomized trial of weekly, twice-monthly, and monthly interpersonal
psychotherapy as maintenance treatment for women with recurrent depression. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 2007, 164: 761–767.
4. Gelso CJ and Woodhouse SS. The termination of psychotherapy: What research tells us
about the process of ending treatment, in Tryon GS (ed.) Counseling Based on Process
Research: Applying What We Know. 2002, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
5. Stuart S and Robertson M. Interpersonal Psychotherapy: A Clinician’s Guide. 2003, London:
Edward Arnold Ltd.
6. Stuart S and Cole V. Treatment of depression following myocardial infarction with
interpersonal psychotherapy. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996, 8: 203–206.
7. Klerman GL, et al. Interpersonal Psychotherapy of Depression. 1984, New York: Basic Books.

52

Interpersonal Psych.indb 52 30/04/12 1:14 PM

 References

8. Klerman GL and Weissman MM. New Applications of Interpersonal Psychotherapy. 1993,

Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press.
9. Weissman MM, Markowitz JW and Klerman GL. Comprehensive Guide to Interpersonal
Psychotherapy. 2000, New York: Basic Books.
10. Howard KI, et al. The dose-effect relationship in psychotherapy. American Psychologist,
1986, 41: 159–164.
11. Howard KI, et al. Patterns of psychotherapy utilization. American Journal of Psychiatry,
1989, 146: 775–778.
12. Howard KI, et al. The psychotherapeutic service delivery system. Psychotherapy Research,
1992, 2: 164–180.
13. Goldberg D. Impressions of psychiatry in Australia. Australasian Psychiatry, 2000, 8: 307.

53

Interpersonal Psych.indb 53 30/04/12 1:14 PM