Our aims are to map profiles of clients seeking couple counselling or relationship education, determine the short- and long-term outcomes of these services, and assess the contribution of specific client factors to therapeutic outcomes.
The top three factors indicative of success in therapy are: client factors, the authentic presence of the therapist and the quality of the relationship bond between the client and therapist.
According to this common process factors model (Karver et al. 2005), client factors consist of the factors that are part of the client, such as the severity of the problems, the clients' strengths and motivation for treatment, and factors that are part of their context, such as social support in their environment.
Client factors include lack of information and fear of disclosing HIV status, health systems factors include lack of ownership of the PMTCT programme amongst nurses, unclear roles and responsibilities, lack of knowledge of the protocol, poor recording systems and continuity of care.
The second group considers major design factors in the development of these technologies, including therapeutic models, client factors, and privacy.
The objectives of the current study were two-fold, first to examine, in a comprehensive manner, the relative contributions of social and clinical factors to the HUI2 measure of health-related quality of life (HRQL) among older adults receiving home care services; and, second, to explore whether any of the observed associations between these client factors and HRQL varied by sex.
Independent variables expected to influence client's perspective of quality of care were summarized as clients' factors, and were measured by total number of children ever born, age in complete years, marital status, occupation, education level, place of residence, and referral.
The effect of client and programme factors on outcomes was assessed by multiple regression analysis.
However, on the individual level agreement between individual clients and their own case manager was only slightly better than chance, both in the choice of key risk and protective factors and in the assessment of client functioning on these factors.
These weaknesses are due to the complex interaction of client and health systems factors.
