3rs manual

Refinement applies to all aspects of animal use, from their housing and husbandry to the scientific procedures performed on them. Examples of refinement include ensuring the animals are provided with housing that allows the expression of species-specific behaviours, using appropriate anaesthesia and analgesia to minimise pain, and training animals to cooperate with procedures to minimise any distress.

Such changes can lead to variation in experimental results that impairs both the reliability and repeatability of studies.

We have recently published our strategy for improving animal welfare. Our 3Rs impacts are wide ranging, from policy and regulatory change to the development and uptake of new technologies and approaches. Here we provide case studies from the research we have funded at UK institutions to illustrate the breadth of the science we support and the benefits delivered. We lead the discovery and application of new technologies and approaches to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific procedures.

We fund research, support training and development, and stimulate changes in policy, regulations and practice. Skip to main content. Further resources on the 3Rs We have also produced a short video introducing the 3Rs and their scientific importance, designed for training scientists, technicians and students, but useful for anyone interested in learning more about the 3Rs in principle and practice.

Definitions of the 3Rs Standard Contemporary Replacement Methods which avoid or replace the use of animals Accelerating the development and use of models and tools, based on the latest science and technologies, to address important scientific questions without the use of animals Reduction Methods which minimise the number of animals used per experiment Appropriately designed and analysed animal experiments that are robust and reproducible, and truly add to the knowledge base Refinement Methods which minimise animal suffering and improve welfare Advancing animal welfare by exploiting the latest in vivo technologies and by improving understanding of the impact of welfare on scientific outcomes Replacement Replacement refers to technologies or approaches which directly replace or avoid the use of animals in experiments where they would otherwise have been used.

Usually, that will mean that a rupture occurred prior to the resolution attempt. In some cases, a therapist may refer to a rupture from a prior session or from earlier in the same session, and then commence a resolution attempt. When you are coding multiple sessions from the same dyad, you may be able to detect very subtle references to prior ruptures.

If you are able to make a link between the resolution strategy and a past rupture, current rupture, or rupture that is anticipated based on past ruptures, then you can code a resolution strategy. If there is no connection to a rupture, then the behavior cannot be considered a resolution strategy, even if it otherwise is topographically similar to one of the resolution strategies.

For example, a therapist may decide to change tasks for many reasons. Only if the change in tasks is related to a rupture can it be coded as a resolution strategy.

In other words, there may not be a resolution for every rupture. Also, resolutions may not follow directly after ruptures—there can be a rupture at the beginning of the session, and a resolution for that rupture may come at the end of the session.

Or one resolution event may address a series of ruptures. For these reasons, we have found it easier to track attempts to resolve ruptures as e at h the sessio odi g the apists use of esolutio st ategies.

Only after watching the entire session do we make global ratings of the extent to which the resolution attempts succeeded in resolving ruptures.

Choosing category of resolution strategy: Select the resolution strategy that best describes what the therapist is doing to address the rupture. As with the rupture markers, coding is not limited by speech turn.

For example: Therapist: It akes se se that ou are frustrated ith e right o. The the apist s espo se is o e spee h tu that o tai s t o resolution markers validating the patie t s defe si e postu e a d a k o ledgi g contribution to a rupture.

Rating the clarity of the resolution marker: When you see an example of a resolution strategy, put a check on the scoresheet. If it is unclear whether the behavior you observed meets full criteria for a particular strategy, you can rate it with a check minus.

They should be based on the entire session. It is possible for a session to include a few minor ruptures e. Such very minor ruptures and resolution strategies can be coded here.

Please note that you are rating significance, not frequency or duration. Overall Withdrawal and Confrontation: After rating each rupture marker, rate the significance of all the withdrawal markers as a group, and all the confrontation markers as a group, using the Significance scale above. For example, if the session was marked more by withdrawal than confrontation in terms of significance for the alliance, then your overall Withdrawal score should be higher than your overall Confrontation score.

Overall Resolution Rating: This rating is your global assessment of the extent to which resolution actually occurred across all the ruptures in the session. This may differ from your significance ratings for the individual resolution strategies. A session may include numerous, significant attempts to resolve ruptures many high Significance ratings , but those attempts may not be completely successful low or moderate Overall Resolution. Sessions may include some ruptures that are resolved and some that are not; pick the rating that best captures your global sense of the session.

Start by anchoring at 3, and then move up or down based on the extent of resolution in the session. I this o te t, a e age is meant to convey the idea of typical, commonplace, baseline.

It is not meant to indicate the statistical average mean in your sample. For example, your sample may include only highly skilled therapists who are all excellent at repairing ruptures. In that case, you could give them all high ratings.

Either the ruptures were not addressed, so they continued, or attempts to resolve ruptures were unsuccessful. If attempts to resolve ruptures of any kind—major or minor—made the alliance worse, then code that here. Resolution strategies neither improved nor harmed the alliance. By the end of the session, patient and therapist have some bond and are generally able to collaborate on most therapy tasks and goals. Sessions with no ruptures or only very minor ruptures that have no significant impact on the work of therapy should be coded here.

If very minor ruptures were resolved very well, code that here. Therapist Contribution Rating: The last item on the scoresheet asks coders to rate the extent to which the therapist caused or exacerbated ruptures in the session. We regard ruptures as relational phenomena that always involve both members of the dyad, so therapists are always contributing to ruptures in some fashion. The focus of this item is the extent to which the the apist is pla i g a la ge tha a e age ole a tuall i itiati g o e a e ati g the rupture.

The therapist might be actively engaging in negative interpersonal behaviors such as criticism, or the therapist might be unusually passive and seem to ignore prominent rupture markers. Below are descriptions and examples of markers of withdrawal ruptures.

Denial The denial marker overlaps with, but is not necessarily synonymous with denial as a defense mechanism. The patie t s denial functions to shut down or move away from the current topic or activity, thereby hindering the work of therapy.

This constitutes a withdrawal rupture because it functions to create or exacerbate withdrawal from the therapist and the work of therapy.

T: You look upset. T: According to what it says here, it looks like you could have died too. P: Yeah. That would have solved a lot of problems T: What would it solve?

P: Nothing. T: It s i te esti g that ou o pa e this issio ith the death of ou othe. P: M othe s death as the ost t au ati e e t of life so fa. That mission was just another mission.

Check minus rating: Patie t s de ial is u lea. You suspe t that the patie t ight e t i g to move away from the therapist, but it is also possible that the patient is collaborating by openly, honestly, and accurately reporting how he or she feels or thinks. P: calmly I do t thi k I actually upset ight o , I thi k I just eall ti ed. The patie t s i i al espo ses fu tio to shut do the the apist s atte pts to e gage the patie t i the work of therapy. Walking out: An extreme example of a minimal response is walking out of the session.

Nonverbals: When a patie t s spee h does ot eet ite ia fo a ithd a al a ke , ut the patie t s o e al eha io s i di ate that the patie t is ithd a i g e. Note that if the patient does this in a way that reveals hostility or contempt for the therapist, then it should also receive a confrontation code. If there is a compelling, external reason why the patient is answering the phone in the middle of a session—e. Overly talkative therapists: When a therapist dominates the session by talking a great deal, coders may feel that the patient has no choice but to give minimal responses because the therapist does not give the patient an opportunity to speak.

Pay close attention to the patient s body language. If the patient appears to be actively listening and is engaged by what the therapist is saying, then the patient is not withdrawing. However, if the patient seems bored or disengaged, then minimal response is an appropriate code even if the therapist is not pausing to let the patient speak. T: That sounds like it was very difficult. How did it make you feel? P: Shrugs. T: So is it upsetting to even talk about it right now?

P: Sort of. T: What type of cancer is it? P: You know what? Check minus rating: Patient gives a short response or goes silent for a few moments, and it is unclear whether the patient is withdrawing from the therapist or is engaging in the work of therapy by quietly processing what the therapist just said. What a patient says after a long pause may help to clarify whether a short reply or silence was a minimal response or not.

A pause followed by a thoughtful answer suggests that the patient is engaged in the therapy process. A pause follo ed a te se espo se o a ha ge i topi suggests that the patie t s silence was part of a withdrawal. The patie t s use of abstract language fu tio s to keep the the apist at a dista e f o the patie t s t ue feelings, concerns, or issues. Intellectualization: The patient may intellectualize by focusing on rational concepts and complex terminology. T: Did it bother you when I said that?

It makes you think about it more and you can learn from it. P: But I mean, you know, I was thinking that maybe what I would do is just not let that happen, and just sa , ell, ou k o , a e I do t e e ha e to u de sta d h that happe ed, a e if I just do t let that happen, that I would just be in a better place to work on things.

Differentiating between collaboration and collusion: Sometimes therapists join patients in the use of abstract language, and both engage in an intellectualized discussion. If so, then this is not a withdrawal rupture.

Note: some patients have an intellectualized style of speaking. If this is the way the patient generally speaks, and it does not seem to interfere with the work of therapy, then it is not a withdrawal rupture.

It is not uncommon for the patient to do both simultaneously—to shift the topic by launching into an avoidant story. Avoidant stories: These stories are often long and tangential or circumstantial, but they can also be brief or even entertaining a d a foste the se se of a pseudoallia e. They may shut the therapist out, as if the patient were not even aware that the therapist is there. Talking about someone else s ea tio s in an effort to avoid talking about oneself should also be coded here; for example, a patient who has been laid off talks about his co- o ke s st ess a d a iet athe tha his o.

Stories that are efforts to engage in the work with the therapist by communicating something that the patient believes is important and relevant should not be coded as withdrawal ruptures. If the patient and the therapist chat a little at the very beginning or end of the sessio as a a of a i g up o ooli g do , do not code that as avoidant storytelling unless you have a strong sense that they are avoiding the work of therapy in an important way.

If the patient shifts the topic not to avoid, but rather to enhance the work of therapy, this ould ot e oded as a ithd a al e. T: How do you think things are going so far in our work together? P: That sounds like a performance review question. I had a performance review at work last week, a d it as so st essful… T: Are you experiencing me as angry right now? P: No, o. A d it s ot that I do t o -- I do t feel-- I can say to my boyfriend… Collaboration vs.

Check minus rating: Patient tells a story or shifts the topic, but it is unclear whether this functions to avoid the work of therapy. The story or new topic may be somewhat relevant, but still has an avoidant quality e. Or the therapist goes along with the story or topic shift, and it is unclear whether the patient and therapist are colluding in a withdrawal or collaborating.

Code deferential for patie ts ho es the the apist— ho see supe fi iall e gaged a d s ile a d sa es to everything the therapist says, even when they do not really agree. T: How was the homework?

P: Oh, it was so helpful. You give such wonderful advice. P: Yeah, totally. T: It can be challenging and can increase the feelings of sadness. T: That s hat it sou ds like. P: I thi k that s a solutely right. I totally agree. Collaboration vs. Patients can genuinely feel and honestly express positive feelings about the therapist and the o k of the ap. Does it feel like the patient is trying to smooth things tone of voice. Then do not code a withdrawal rupture.

Then do code a withdrawal rupture. Check minus rating: Patient is agreeing with or praising the therapist or the therapy, and it is unclear whether the patient is being overly deferential or sincere. P: Did ou do it all ou self, o did ou use a i te io de o ato? I i p essed. Patient looks tearful. T: It s ha d fo ou to tell e a out those sad feeli gs.

P: A bright, forced smile. Yes, it is. It s ot eas to talk a out. T: What just happened? You did not like that question? P: Well, I just felt like things were moving forward chuckling , that question took me back a couple of steps. P: So, first, I wanted chuckle , afte the last sessio , I felt like, I do t k o if that was the intention or not but I felt like you were trying to tell me that I need to take more responsibility.

That s the i p essio I left ith. Ma e I as t doi g ho e o k, so I as t taking it seriously, me coming here, and that I as t halle gi g self.

Like, I as just o i g in here and it became like a routine. So I took that as you want me to do my homework and I eed to o k o thi gs a d put o e effo t i to this e ause I ot he e e ause so eo e made me, I he e e ause I a ted to, so to get e efit out of it, I eeded to e o e proactive. Does the patient seem uneasy or uncomfortable? If yes, then code a withdrawal rupture. Check minus rating: When the content and affect seem discrepant, but you are not sure if the patient is withdrawing from the therapist.

The patient may make self-denigrating and self-minimizing statements. The patient may engage in this process as a means of avoiding conflict with the therapist. T: That sounds important.

Can you tell me more about that? P: Sighs. What s the poi t? It s ot goi g to ake e feel ette. Patient mentions several friends and acquaintances, but for each one, provides a reason that she cannot turn to them for support.

T: Are there other people in your life that we can get you connected with? P: U … long pause it s ha d e ause the f ie ds I e ade he e, the e ot people that I eall a t to ope up to. The e ot people I thi k ould gi e good ad i e. I ha e t fou d, ou k o , really good friends here yet.

The therapist keeps trying to get patient to identify someone she can talk to, and the patient rejects the idea that such a person exists in her life—because she is hopeless that her situation can be improved.

Note that patients can be self-critical or hopeless about some aspects of their situation, but still be engaged with the therapist and the work of therapy, and can explore these feelings with the therapist in a collaborative way, as in the example below: P: I doubted my intelligence. Like, a e I just stupid e ause I ha i g all these p o lems. So am I really a thinking t pe? I do t thi k thi gs th ough. Because I always test as thinking, but then I thought, well these tests are subjective.

Patient is not withdrawing—she is sharing her self-critical thoughts in an open and direct way. This is not a rupture. Below are descriptions and examples of markers of confrontation ruptures.

The patient may criticize the the apist s i te pe so al st le, o e p ess dou ts a out the the apist s competence. If the patient says or implies that the therapist does not understand the patient, or is ineffective as a therapist, then code it here.

For most patients, it is very difficult to criticize a therapist directly. If you get any sense of a hint of negative feelings for the therapist, code it. P: I as thi ki g a out so e of the thi gs that ou said last eek. I as t e happ a out them. Not so much what you said, actually, more the way you said them. You were pushing me into a corne. I ould t ha e thought that as the a to go a out helpi g people. It s eall , eall , eall uncomfortable.

T: And the air force? This article describes the use and function of this instrument in psychotherapy research.

The psychotherapeutic dialogue is the tangible aspect of the psychotherapeutic alliance. Within this alliance is the healing aspect of psychotherapy. An alliance rupture is defined in this manual as a deterioration in the alliance, in the sense that these occurrences are manifested by ab apparent lack of collaboration between patient and therapist on the task forward.

These mainly confluent, rupture-less relationships in psychotherapy do not lead to healing at best, and at worst, may lead to the client being dependent on the therapy.

By rupture, the authors Eubanks-Carter et. Progressive performance—with attitude. Back to top. Request a quote Trade-in value Leasing Financing Apply for financing.

Facebook Twitter Instagram Youtube Linkedin.