SPR international conference, Krakow, 25-28 June

Joint panel presented: A structured discussion panel with colleagues from Â鶹ԭ´´ and Metanoia Institute, organised by Eva Fragiadaki from the University of West of England on ‘Achieving Real World Impact in Psychotherapy Practice’. George spoke about issues preventing the impact of psychotherapy research to real world practice and ways to address these. Charlie talked about My presentation focused on the review of the Ethical Framework and specifically the difficulties we have faced in consulting with diverse voices, which spoke to the conference theme of ‘Who are the voices we need to hear?’. Belinda focused on her own experiences of completing research as a practitioner and the difficulties of bridging the gap between research and practice. The panel was attended by approximately 50 people and the audience was engaged with many questions at the end. 

Charlie:

The conference provided some brilliant opportunities for networking, and I met a new colleague from Norway who is interested in collaborating on a piece of research around person-centred therapy for young people in schools. Many of the presentations that I chose to attend were on the use of AI in counselling and research, which gave me a deeper understanding of some of the potentials and pitfalls of this technology. I also attended several sessions on the use of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and clinical feedback (CF), which is an area of research which has always been prominent at SPR and is also an interest of mine. Much of the upcoming research blends ROM/CF and AI and therefore the two were complementary topics.  

Finally, I attended some presentations which had more personal value for me in terms of my own development, such as working collaboratively, tips for early career researchers, and how to protect your own mental health as a mental health researcher.

George:

The second panel, which I organised and in which I participated, focused on the application of mentalisation-based therapies for the treatment of psychotic conditions (attended by approximately 100 people). The panel brought together an international group of experts in the field from Germany, Spain, Holland and the UK, and covered aspects of both clinical work and research with both adults and young people who are on the psychosis spectrum. My presentation in the panel focused on the empirical and clinical rationale for applying mentalisation-based therapy to psychosis. Overall, the panel was well attended with many audience questions/comments at the end. Organising this panel has given me the opportunity to solidify my collaboration with an international group of practitioners and researchers and gave further opportunities for collaborative work in the future. In addition, I had the opportunity to network with a number of other colleagues interested in this and related areas of work.

Beyond my participation in these panels, I also had a chance to attend many high quality presentations on a range of topics relevant for the work we do, primarily focusing on how to effectively plan practice-based research and integrate research into course/training curricula (very relevant in terms of the work we do to engage practitioners and trainers with research), research into in-therapy processes (e.g. therapeutic alliance, factors associated with therapy dropout, etc.), the application of psychotherapy research among marginalised communities, research into clinical supervision processes, and research into parenting interventions with at risk families.

Belinda:

I found the conference stimulating and varied. It was well organised, and I made some new contacts. Chief amongst these was an academic from Dublin who presented on counselling supervision. Having completed my doctoral research recently on the topic of supervision, I also have a particular interest in this area. We will keep in touch around future research topics and conferences.

I attended a number of presentations on the link between research and practice as this is a topic which interests me. The second workshop on the first day explored and illuminated this, being concerned with research writing for clinical audiences.  It considered what therapists need from research and compared this to what researcher’s need from research.

Other presentations I attended concerned couple counselling, family counselling and working systemically. These areas fit well with my experience of counselling and therapy, as I am trained as a relationship counsellor and currently contributing to the work, we are doing with Professional Standards to develop a competence framework in this area.  The final stand out for me was a consideration of the long-term effects of trauma experienced by people who had grown up in East Germany and Poland.

Anna (online only):

My online presentation late Friday afternoon was in the ‘child and family dynamics’ session. I presented research from my PhD focused on an interdisciplinary perspective to understand how the relationship between the mother and work identities influence work and help-seeking decisions. The session was attended by nine people which isn’t bad for an SPR online brief paper session.

The most interesting sessions I attended online were focused on AI in research and perinatal mental health. The session on cultural and intersectional approaches was also valuable as papers presented focused on decolonising psychotherapy, eco-anxiety and trainee experiences, which are all topics I want to learn more about given our team’s research priorities.  

Future SPR conferences:

• 2026 Osaka, Japan – June 24-27, 2026
• 2026 Bristol, UK – UK chapter conference/meeting – September.
• 2027 Stockholm, Sweden – June 30 - July 03, 2027
• 2028 Bogotá, Colombia.