research on structural family therapy

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Effectiveness of Structural–Strategic Family Therapy in the Treatment of Adolescents with Mental Health Problems and Their Families

Lucía jiménez.

1 Faculty of Psychology, University of Seville, Camilo José Cela s/n, 41018 Seville, Spain; se.su@zenemijaicul (L.J.); se.su@3aneabm (S.B.); se.su@llb (B.L.)

Victoria Hidalgo

Sofía baena, antonio león.

2 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit, Virgen Macarena Hospital, C/ Dr. Fedriani, 3, 41009 Seville, Spain

Bárbara Lorence

Mental health problems during adolescence constitute a major public health concern today for both families and stakeholders. Accordingly, different family-based interventions have emerged as an effective treatment for adolescents with certain disorders. Specifically, there is evidence of the effectiveness of concrete approaches of systemic family therapy on the symptoms of adolescents and family functioning in general. However, few studies have examined the effectiveness of other relevant approaches, such as structural and strategic family therapy, incorporating parent–child or parental dyadic measurement. The purpose of this study was to test the effectiveness of a structural–strategic family therapy with adolescents involved in mental health services and their families. For this purpose, 41 parents and adolescents who participated in this treatment were interviewed at pre-test and post-test, providing information on adolescent behavior problems, parental sense of competence, parental practices, parenting alliance, and family functioning. Regardless of participants’ gender, adolescents exhibited fewer internalizing and externalizing problems after the treatment. Parents reported higher family cohesion, higher satisfaction and perceived efficacy as a parent, and healthier parental practices (less authoritarian and permissive practices, as well as more authoritative ones). An interaction effect between parenting alliance and gender was found, with more favorable results for the mothers. In conclusion, this paper provides evidence of the usefulness of structural–strategic family therapy for improving family, dyadic, and individual facets in families with adolescents exhibiting mental health problems.

1. Introduction

Mental health problems during adolescence constitute a major public health concern today for both families and stakeholders [ 1 , 2 ]. Epidemiological studies show that mental health issues are the first nonfatal cause of illness [ 3 ], are in the top five causes of death among adolescents [ 4 ], and represent 16% of the global health-related burden in young people [ 4 , 5 ]. In addition, mental health problems during adolescence are an important predictor of socialization difficulties and absenteeism at this developmental stage, as well as one of the most significant predictors of adjustment problems and mental disorders in adulthood [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. In order to address these pressing issues, it is essential to have effective intervention and prevention strategies that meet the specific needs of adolescents with mental health problems.

Adolescence is a challenging transitional period for both children and families. It is a developmental stage characterized by normative physical, social, and psychological changes [ 9 ], some of which may be identified as potentially stressful among this population [ 10 ]. Psychosocial stress in adolescents can be accentuated by the presence of stressful or adverse life events (as maltreatment and violence, loss events, intrafamilial problems, school and interpersonal problems) that are associated with severe negative outcomes [ 11 ]. Although there are important inter-individual differences, the current homogenization of adolescents’ daily experiences has contributed to the observation of fewer cross-cultural and gender differences during this stage [ 12 ]. Some of the normative developmental tasks that adolescents need to undertake for a healthy development are the search for autonomy, identity, and independence [ 9 ]. For families, this is a period characterized by the readjustment of family roles and norms, along with an increase in family conflicts [ 9 , 13 , 14 ]. Families face the challenge of adjusting to these new demands and needs while trying to conserve family unity [ 9 , 13 , 14 ]. The inability to adjust to these new demands, together with inflexibility within the family over the negotiation of new norms and different solutions, are often related to mental health problems. Families with an adolescent with mental health problems have additional needs, demands, and difficulties stemming from the mental disorder [ 15 ]. Parents often face challenging behaviors and conflictive situations, having to manage symptoms and coordinate and engage with different service systems [ 16 , 17 ]. As they struggle to deal with these additional demands, parents often find their skills coming into question, and this can be accompanied by feelings of low competence, frustration, and powerlessness, together with increased isolation and contraction in their social network [ 15 , 18 ].

There has been a proliferation of family-oriented and family-based interventions with adolescents with mental health difficulties; some of these are considered as evidence-based practices in the treatment of children and adolescents with certain disorders [ 19 , 20 ]. Previous research indicates that the incorporation of family members or family elements in therapy is either directly or indirectly an effective component of interventions that target adolescents with mental health problems [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. On one hand, direct approaches (e.g., family-centered behavioral management or family therapy) involve a more immediate engagement with the family and usually include specific objectives that target families or family members. On the other hand, indirect approaches (e.g., psychodynamic therapy or cognitive–behavioral therapy) incorporate the family context through reviews or reports, using them as informants at some point and by keeping the family elements in mind while intervening [ 22 ]. In sum, under the “family-based interventions” umbrella term, there are a wide range of qualitatively different interventions and approaches. The most widely used family-based interventions include psychoeducational approaches [ 24 ], behavioral interventions, and systemic family therapy [ 25 ]. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of specific systemic family therapy approaches in families with an adolescent presenting a mental health problem.

From a systemic perspective, family is defined as a transactional system, where difficulties in any member have an influence on every other member and on the whole family as a unit. In turn, family processes have an impact on every individual member, as well as on the different relationships embedded within the family context [ 26 ]. This perspective shifts away from a linear consideration of family processes by recognizing the multiple recursive influences that shape family relationships and family functioning, perceiving it as an ongoing process throughout the life cycle [ 27 ]. Systemic family therapy has been shown to be an efficacious intervention for families and adolescents with a wide range of mental health problems, such as drug use [ 19 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]), eating disorders [ 29 , 30 ] and both internalizing and externalizing disorders [ 19 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. Despite these advances, most of the literature has focused on either systemic family therapy as a whole, without taking into account the different approaches embedded within this framework, or on the effectiveness of more manualized approaches, such as multisystemic family therapy (e.g., [ 37 ]) or functional family therapy (e.g., [ 34 , 38 ]). Few studies have examined the effectiveness of more classical and widely used approaches, such as structural and strategic family therapy [ 39 ]. Hence, more research is needed to be able to draw more definite conclusions regarding the use of these types of family therapy approaches.

Structural family therapy is one of the dominant approaches in systemic family intervention, originally created by Minuchin [ 40 ]. The focus of this approach is on achieving a healthy hierarchical family organization, where there are different subsystems with their limits and boundaries [ 27 , 41 ]. According to this approach, the difficulties expressed by the adolescent are a reflection of: (1) A family structural imbalance; (2) a dysfunctional hierarchy within the family system, often characterized by difficulties in establishing boundaries between the parental and the child subsystem; and (3) a maladaptive reaction to changing demands [ 27 ]. Therefore, the intervention focuses on reinforcing the parental subsystem, highlighting the need to present a “united front”, and clearly differentiating it from the parent–child subsystem [ 25 , 27 , 41 , 42 ]. It also emphasizes the need to adjust the rigidity of the limits and the relationship between subsystems according to the moment of the life cycle [ 42 ]. During adolescence, while authority still relies on the parental subsystem, the way it is exerted cannot be the same as in previous developmental stages, and the limits between the subsystems, while remaining clear, have to be more flexible [ 25 , 27 , 42 ]. Although the core elements of this approach are well established and widely used among the clinical community [ 30 , 43 ], few studies have addressed the effectiveness of this approach for adolescents with mental health problems [ 39 , 44 ].

Strategic family therapy is purely embedded within the systemic model and has a more directive impression [ 25 , 45 ]. From this approach, the symptom is considered as serving a function to the family, as well as reflecting a difficulty of the family to solve a problem [ 25 , 27 , 45 ]. According to the strategic approach, when faced with a problem, families adopt solutions that have been useful to them in the past. However, symptoms such as behavioral or emotional difficulties or an increase in conflicts emerge for which those solutions are no longer valid, and the family is unable to find and effectively use alternative ones; thus, they become stuck in a symptom-maintaining sequence [ 27 ]. The objective of this therapy is for the family to initiate actions and solutions that are different to the ones previously attempted [ 27 , 45 ]. There is extensive evidence about the effectiveness of the brief–strategic family therapy approach, which is a manualized and specific variant of the strategic approach, with different populations [ 46 ], including adolescents with mental health problems (e.g., [ 32 , 47 , 48 ]). Though structural and strategic family therapy are conceptually two different approaches within the systemic framework, they share certain core elements, and it is not rare to use them conjointly. Some illustrative examples are brief–strategic family therapy and multisystemic therapy, both of which incorporate representative elements from both approaches.

In general, literature has shown that systemic family therapy has a significant impact by reducing internalizing and externalizing symptoms of adolescents, as well as improving overall family functioning [ 35 , 36 ]. However, in spite of the evidence indicating gender differences in adjustment problems, especially in internalizing symptoms, most available studies have not taken into account the adolescent’s gender when examining the impact of these interventions [ 49 ]. In addition, most studies have focused on individual outcomes or on family functioning as a whole, rather than incorporating parent–child dyadic measures or parental dyadic measures. Research has shown that some of these dyadic dimensions play an important role in families with adolescents with mental health problems; they should therefore be incorporated in effectiveness evaluations. More specifically, coercive and permissive parenting practices [ 50 , 51 , 52 ] have generally been considered as two of the most important predictors of internalizing and externalizing problems. Other parenting dimensions linked to child psychopathology include: Low sense of parental competence, defined as the perception parents have of their own performance as parents [ 52 , 53 , 54 ], and high levels of interparental conflict [ 55 ]. As a result, parental practices, sense of parental competence, and parenting alliance constitute intervention targets and should be included in effectiveness evaluations.

For some of these dimensions, the studies available highlight the need to control gender differences. Specifically, there is evidence of important differences in parenting practices between mothers and fathers, with mothers scoring higher in communication and control dimensions [ 56 , 57 , 58 ]. In addition, there is evidence of gender differences in the perception of parenting alliance and co-parenting; more specifically, in parental support and involvement dimensions. Thus, mothers are more likely to be involved in parental decision-making processes than fathers but also feel less supported in their parental role [ 59 ].

In this framework, the goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of structural–strategic family therapy on different individual, dyadic, and family dimensions in families with an adolescent with a mental health problem; to do so, we conducted a comprehensive analysis and incorporated a gender perspective. According to previous evidence on systemic family therapy, we expected a reduction of internalizing and externalizing symptoms of adolescents, as well as an improvement in family functioning. Due to their role in child psychopathology, a reduction of coercive and permissive parenting practices as well as an increase in sense of parental competence and parenting alliance were hypothesized. Because of an absence of previous studies, we did not have expectations regarding the adolescent’s gender, although higher improvements in mothers were expected in comparison to fathers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. study design.

This study was part of a wider research project assessing the effectiveness of a structural–strategic family therapy (SSFT) initiative run by mental health services in Southern Spain (Andalusia) for families with an adolescent with a mental health problem. This initiative combined the theoretical principles and techniques of structural and strategic family therapy in order to reduce the adolescent’s mental behavior problems and improve family relationships. The family therapy sessions initially focused on establishing a therapeutic alliance with all members of the family, providing them with a safe, nonjudging space where all of them felt understood. Afterwards, the objectives of the sessions were to set clear boundaries between the subsystems, to strengthen the parental subsystem encouraging joint decision-making and teamwork, to highlight and balance parental authority with the increasing need for autonomy from the adolescent, and to reframe the relationships within the family system. Both the referred adolescent with a mental health diagnosis and his/her parents participated in SSFT; any other significant family members were also asked to attend. The intervention was led by two therapists trained in structural and strategic family therapy (a clinical psychologist and a psychiatrist). On average, the treatment consisted of a one-hour session each month over a period of approximately 10 months [ 60 ].

For the purpose of the evaluation, a quasi-experimental design was followed, including a pre-test versus post-test evaluation of the participants of an experimental group (EG). This EG consisted of the population of families receiving the SSFT intervention during the study (i.e., between 2009 and 2012).

2.2. Participants

The sample consisted of 41 participants (51.22% mothers, 48.78% fathers), whose adolescent children had been referred to mental health services in the South of Spain. The children’s ages ranged between 10 and 17 (M = 14.12, SD = 1.79), and there was a higher percentage of girls (73.17% girls and 26.83% boys). Most families were two-parent (90.24%), with nearly all of them having four members (M = 3.82, SD = 0.85) and an average of two children (M = 1.80, SD = 0.51).

Following ICD-10 criteria, behavioral disorders were the most common diagnoses (31.71%), followed by anxiety (29.27%), mood (17.07%), and eating disorders (17.07%). Other less frequent diagnoses included personality disorders (9.76%), psychotic disorders (9.76%), and pervasive developmental disorders (4.88%). Approximately 20% of adolescents with one type of disorder met the criteria for another class of disorder (19.51%), with half of the comorbidities between behavioral and anxiety disorders (9.76%) and the other half between anxiety and mood disorders (9.75%).

2.3. Measures

The study followed a multi-informant approach, collecting information from practitioners, caregivers, and target adolescents. In this paper, information provided by practitioners and caregivers is included. Practitioners provided information about adolescent and family sociodemographic profiles. Caregivers informed about the target adolescent behavior, as well as about their parental sense of competence, parental practices, perceived parenting alliance, and perceived family functioning. These measures are described below.

Sociodemographic profile : We compiled an ad-hoc questionnaire to collect sociodemographic information about the target adolescent’s age and gender (by measuring sex) and the family structure (one/two-parent structure) and composition (number of family members and children at home).

Child behavior checklist for ages 6–18 [ 61 ]: This inventory provides information on child and adolescent behaviors from the perspective of caregivers. It measures both positive competences and problem behaviors (internalizing and externalizing). A compilation of 113 items (ranging from 0 = not true to 2 = very true or often true ) measures internalizing (withdrawn/depressed, somatic complaints, and anxiety/depression) and externalizing problems (rule-breaking and aggressive behavior). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were α = 0.85 for internalizing problems and α = 0.89 for externalizing problems. Higher scores indicate greater behavior problems. Mean scores were computed.

Parental sense of competence [ 62 ]: This scale explores perceived competence as a parent. It consists of 16 items with responses on a six-point scale. Two subscales can be computed, measuring efficacy and satisfaction in parenting. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were α = 0.75 for efficacy and α = 0.73 for satisfaction. For both subscales, mean scores were computed, with higher scores indicating greater parental sense of competence.

Parenting styles and dimensions questionnaire [ 63 ]: This 32-item instrument consists of three scales measuring authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive parenting. The authoritative items reflect reasoning/induction, warmth and support, and democratic participation; the authoritarian items reflect verbal hostility, physical coercion, and nonreasoning/punitive strategies; and the permissive items reflect indulgence and failure to follow through. All items are answered on a five-point scale, with higher scores showing higher authoritative/authoritarian/permissive practices. Internal consistency in this study was α = 0.81 for authoritative practices, α = 0.79 for authoritarian practices, and α = 0.64 for permissive practices. Mean scores were computed.

Parenting alliance inventory [ 64 ]: This 20-item scale assesses the degree of commitment and cooperation between husband and wife in child rearing. For each item, parents respond on a 5-point scale. The total score revealed α = 0.94 in this study. We used the mean score, with higher scores indicating stronger support between partners as parents.

Family cohesion and adaptability scale [ 65 ]. We used the FACES-III, which evaluates emotional bonding between family members, as well as the adaptability of the family system. It is ranked on a 5-point scale. Unlike other versions, the scores assessed with FACES-III are interpreted in a linear manner, so the higher the score, the greater the level of family cohesion and adaptability. Internal consistency in this research was α = 0.74 for cohesion and α = 0.56 for adaptability. Mean scores were computed.

2.4. Procedure

Mental health practitioners referred the families for SSFT intervention. SSFT practitioners enrolled the families in SSFT if they met the following criteria: (1) A child under 18 was being treated by the mental health service; (2) the referred child met ICD-10 criteria for: Pervasive developmental disorders; behavioral and emotional disorders with an onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence; neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders; and if the previous criteria were not met, the child had to meet the requisites for an eating disorder process or severe mental illness; and (3) SSFT practitioners, based on their professional criteria through the observation and interviews with both the adolescent and the parents, considered that the child’s symptomatology could be related with a family dysfunction (e.g., the symptomatology was limited to the family context, parental disagreement or dysfunctional communication patterns) or that the family dynamic was either being impacted by the symptomatology or maintaining it (e.g., difficulties in adjusting to changes due to adolescence or parental practices not coherent with the adolescent period, frequent or persistent family conflicts). If the intervention criteria were met, SSFT practitioners enrolled the family in the trial if they had an adolescent member (10 years or older).

Two trained researchers, external to the SSFT, interviewed the caregivers and practitioners of each family and assessed the adolescents at the mental health service facilities. The pre-test was completed before the first SSFT session, and the post-test in the last session (for those families that had attended at least three intervention sessions). The average length of time between pre- and post-test assessment was 10 months, which corresponded approximately to the school year. Every informant participated in the study voluntarily, after signing an informed consent form in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The aims of the research project were explained, and all participants were assured that their anonymity would be protected. Ethics approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the Andalusian Health Services (code 22/0509). No monetary incentives were offered.

The flow of cases through the trial is shown in Figure 1 . Patients were classified as dropouts if they did not complete Time 2 assessment protocols, despite being contacted at least three times by the research team. The dropout rate at Time 2 was 42.25%.

Flowchart of participants through the study.

Dropouts and completers were compared in all pretreatment variables using one-way ANOVAs for quantitative variables and Chi-square tests for qualitative ones. Partial eta squared and Cramer’s V were computed as effect-size indices. Partial eta squared was considered small if <0.01, medium if ≥0.06 and <0.14, or large if >0.14; Cramer’s V was considered small if <0.30, medium if >0.30 and <0.50, or high if >0.50 [ 66 ]. Significant differences were not found in any variables, except for parenting alliance (see Table 1 ).

Baseline characteristics for completers and dropouts.

* p < 0.05.

2.5. Data Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS v-18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) [ 67 ]. Missing data at item level were extrapolated using the missing value analysis. When more than 10% of the items from a questionnaire were missing, the case was excluded from the corresponding analysis. If this were not the case, we then applied the SEM procedure to impute the data, having previously checked that the data were missing at random using Little’s MCAR test. We found less than 5% of missing data with an MCAR distribution.

We examined univariate and multivariate outliers using box plots and Mahalanobis’ distance, respectively [ 68 ], finding two multivariate outliers which we excluded from subsequent analyses. Other statistical assumptions for parametric tests were checked and confirmed following Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black’s [ 69 ] recommendations (i.e., linearity, normality, homogeneity, and absence of multicollinearity and singularity). As an exception, high kurtosis for parental alliance required a reflected and logarithmic transformation.

We based statistical conclusions on effect-size indices when statistical significance did not reach significance due to small sample size. We examined main and interaction effects from mixed factorial ANOVAs for the analyses of effectiveness, considering the pre-post measures as within the subjects’ factor (change) and informant’s gender as between the subjects’ factor. We used partial eta squared as an effect-size index, with the conventional limits of 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 for the small, medium, and large levels of effect size, respectively [ 66 ].

First of all, we examined the main effect of gender and found neither a significant effect nor a medium or large effect size. As Table 2 shows, after controlling for gender, the change between pre- and post-measures was significant for several dependent variables. Thus, the adolescents exhibited fewer internalizing and externalizing problems in the post-test with a high effect size. In turn, parents reported higher satisfaction, as well as fewer authoritarian and permissive practices, also with a high effect size. Moreover, higher efficacy as a parent and more authoritative practices were reported with a medium effect size. Finally, the interaction between change and gender was significant for the parenting alliance variable, with a high effect size.

Descriptives and inferential statistics for change and change * gender interaction of the mixed factorial ANOVAs for each dependent variable.

Note . Boldfaced contrasts indicate medium or high effect sizes. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.005, *** p < 0.001.

The change * gender interaction is plotted in Figure 2 , and it shows that mothers improved their parenting alliance after intervention, while the opposite occurred with fathers. To investigate further into the interaction effect, we performed a simple repeated measures ANOVA for each gender. The results showed that mothers significantly improved their parenting alliance after treatment with a high effect size, F (1,18) = 4.54, p = 0.047, η 2 partial = 0.20, but no statistical difference was observed for fathers, F (1,18) = 0.24, p = 0.628, η 2 partial = 0.01.

Interaction effect of gender on parenting alliance.

4. Discussion

The results of this study have shown a positive impact of a structural–strategic oriented family therapy on both the parents and adolescents in the family, dyadic, and individual-level dimensions. The improvement observed after the intervention was independent of the gender of both parents and adolescents, barring the parenting alliance variable.

The systemic approach understands the family as a whole, not as a simple sum of individual members. According to this approach, a common objective in structural family therapy, regardless of clients’ needs, consists of empowering and strengthening the family as a system, favoring the persistence of these changes over time [ 38 ]. In consonance with previous empirical evidence [ 35 , 36 ], this study shows the impact of this approach in the family sphere, particularly in terms of improving family cohesion. This result is particularly relevant with vulnerable families facing difficulties associated with the readjustment of family roles and norms, response to new demands and needs of family members [ 9 , 13 , 14 ]. This is the case of families with adolescents suffering from mental health problems, due to the existence of additional needs, demands, and difficulties linked to the presence of the mental disorders [ 15 ]. Nevertheless, despite the importance of the abovementioned results, no improvement was observed in family adaptability. Families in this situation tend to behave inflexibly when negotiating and learning new ways of resolving parent–adolescent conflict [ 42 ]. An improvement in family adaptability in this population would have been remarkable; the absence of changes in this dimension may be due to reliability problems when assessing with FACES [ 70 ].

At a dyadic level, authoritative parental practices increased after the treatment, and both authoritarian and permissive practices decreased. Only a handful of studies had previously assessed the effectiveness of a systemic family approach on families whose adolescents presented mental health problems in dyadic dimensions [ 44 ]. Parenting training in childrearing practices constitutes a core component of most family interventions, particularly when child behavior problems exist [ 38 ]. Parental practices based on affect, dialogue, and reasoning are related to better family functioning [ 71 ] and adolescent adjustment [ 6 , 72 , 73 ].

The structural–strategic therapy tested in this study has also shown other dyadic effects. Participant mothers reported feeling more support from fathers in childrearing, although the opposite was not found (fathers feeling more supported by mothers). This result is not surprising considering that mothers are usually involved more in childrearing than fathers and also feel less supported in their parenting role [ 59 ]. This difference in gender may also be explained because mothers reported a lower level of parenting alliance before the intervention, and therefore had greater scope for subsequent improvement compared to fathers.

At an individual level, participating parents reported better parental sense of competence after the therapy. Thus, both fathers and mothers reported higher perceived efficacy and satisfaction as a parent. Again, this result is particularly relevant as parents from these families presented high levels of difficulty in exerting their parental role [ 15 ]. For example, there is evidence of the existence of additional parental stress on parents with adolescents presenting mental health problems, and the relationship between parental stress and less perceived efficacy and satisfaction as a parent [ 74 ]. Consequently, the increase observed in parental sense of competence could be mirrored by a decrease in parenting stress. In any event, the improvement in parental sense of competence is positive not just for parents at an individual level, but also for the adolescents and the family as a whole [ 53 , 75 , 76 ].

Finally, this study has shown positive results in adolescent behavior, regardless of gender [ 19 , 33 , 34 ]. The reduction in adolescent problematic behavior both at external and internal level confirms the usefulness of structural–strategic therapy. This result can be explained as a direct effect of the intervention or as an indirect effect of improvements in family functioning [ 35 , 36 ], parental practices [ 50 , 51 , 52 ], parental sense of competence [ 52 , 54 ], and parenting alliance [ 55 ]. As pointed out in the introduction, the absence of differences between boys and girls can be explained by the homogenization of adolescents’ daily experiences in today’s society [ 12 ].

This study has several limitations. First, a main shortcoming is the small sample of families recruited in the study. The high specialization and costs associated with SSFT together with the high-risk profile of these families help to understand this limitation. The latter, due to mental health problems and family dysfunction, can also explain the high dropout rate reported in this study. Whatever the reason is, the statistical strength of the study could be improved with a higher sample size, particularly if considering the statistical conditions of the longitudinal analyses [ 77 ]. Second, we would have liked to have been able to conduct a long-term analysis to examine the persistence of treatment effects in the mid to long term. Third, the most important limitation of this study was the absence of a comparison group to enable us to corroborate that changes between pre-test and post-test were due to the therapy and not to other circumstances [ 78 ].

5. Conclusions

Despite the abovementioned limitations, this study has made some contributions. We drew on previous findings about the effectiveness of family-oriented and family-based interventions with adolescents with mental health difficulties [ 19 , 20 ] from family systemic therapy approach [ 19 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. While reaching the gold standard for effectiveness remains a distant goal for structural–strategic family therapy, this paper offers some evidences about its usefulness for improving individual, dyadic, and family adjustment in families with adolescents with mental health difficulties [ 39 ].

In sum, this study has practical implications concerning the way specialized services for children and adolescents with mental health problems have been traditionally organized, and regarding the core elements that need to be specifically targeted when working with these families. In general, specialized mental health services for children and adolescents have traditionally focused on symptom reduction and “parental training”, which have proven to be useful and essential interventions. However, our results support the importance of incorporating complementary approaches targeting families as a whole in their regular services as to adequately address the complex needs and difficulties of families of adolescents with mental health issues [ 23 ]. In addition, this study highlights the need to directly target certain core elements related to the dyadic parental relationship and the parent–child relationship when intervening with families of adolescents with mental health problems. Finally, gender-related results support the idea of differentiated approaches when working at a dyadic parental level, such as co-parenting. Mothers and fathers seem to not only experience co-parenting differently but also respond differently to interventions that directly target this core element [ 59 ]. Therefore, this study highlights the relevance of taking into account and incorporating gender-based strategies in interventions.

Acknowledgments

To M.J. Blanco, coordinator in charge of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Unit, Virgen Macarena Hospital (Seville, Spain), for her technical support in data collection.

Author Contributions

Project administration, supervision and methodology: L.J., A.L., and V.H. Data curation: S.B., L.J., and B.L. Resources: A.L. Conceptualization, formal analysis, and writing: L.J., V.H., B.L., and S.B. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

This study has been supported by the Research Project “Effectiveness of the family therapy treatment developed in mental health services. Analysis of effectiveness moderators”. This work was also supported by the Spanish Government (MINECO, Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness). Project reference: EDU2013-41441-P. In addition, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports has funded the author S.B. with a predoctoral grant (FPU 014/6751).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Structural Family Therapy Works

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Margaret Seide, MS, MD, is a board-certified psychiatrist who specializes in the treatment of depression, addiction, and eating disorders. 

Verywell / Jiaqi Zhou

• What SFT Can Help With
• Strengths of SFT

Things to Consider

How to get started.

Structural family therapy (SFT) is a type of family therapy that looks at the structure of a family unit and improves the interactions between family members. This approach to therapy was originally developed by Salvador Minuchin and has become one of the dominant forms of family intervention.

It suggests that dysfunctional family relationships can create stress and mental health problems for members of that family. 

By addressing how members of the family relate to one another, the goal is to improve communication and relationships to create positive changes for both individual family members and the family unit as a whole.

What Are the Primary Components of Structural Family Therapy?

Structural family therapy relies on a technique known as family mapping to uncover and understand patterns of behavior and family interactions. During this process, the therapist creates a visual representation that identifies the family's problems and how those issues are maintained through family dynamics.

This map diagrams the basic structure of the family, including the members of the family unit, their ages, genders, and relationships to one another. Aspects of the family observed during this process include:

• Family rules
• Patterns of behavior
• Family structure/hierarchies

This process frequently involves having family members themselves make their own maps describing their family. This not only boosts engagement in the therapeutic process but also gives a therapist a better understanding of how individual family members view their place within the family.

"Inviting family members to place the people and write their names inside a circle promotes a recognition of their mutual belongingness, an awareness that 'these are us,'" explained Salvador Minuchin and his colleagues in Working With Families of the Poor .

After this initial process, the therapist observes the family during therapy sessions and in the home environment to track interactions and develop a hypothesis about the nature of the family's relationships and interaction patterns.

Other techniques that may be used during SFT include:

• Joining : This technique involves the therapist developing a sharing and empathetic relationship to "join" the family.
• Boundary-making : The therapist will help the family identify, explore, and adopt clear boundaries and hierarchies within the family.
• Role-play : This involves acting out scenarios with the therapist's guidance to look at certain patterns of behavior, identify dysfunction, and practice enacting alternatives.
• Reframing : In cognitive reframing, the therapist helps family members think about situations in different ways or see things from a different perspective. This can help people see experiences more positively.

What Structural Family Therapy Can Help With

Structural family therapy can be helpful for many families, but it is often recommended in situations or life events that involve:

• Families affected by trauma
• Divorce, separation, or remarriage  
• Blended families
• Intergenerational families
• Single-parent families
• When one family member is affected by a mental health condition such as depression , anxiety , substance use, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Families affected by chronic illness or disability
• Significant life changes such as changing careers, coming out , or moving

Any family that is coping with tension or conflict can potentially benefit from structural family therapy.

Vulnerable families faced with readjustments caused by shifting roles, changed norms, and new demands may benefit from this type of therapy, which has been shown to help empower and strengthen the entire family system.

Benefits of Structural Family Therapy

Families struggling with conflict can benefit from this type of therapy for many reasons. Some of the ways it may help include:

• Corrects imbalances within a family
• Establishes healthy boundaries
• Helps individuals improve their reactions to changing demands
• Improves communication
• Improves hierarchies within the family system
• Increases parental competence and satisfaction
• Improves relationship dynamics
• Reduces anger and resentment

SFT recognizes that many aspects of a family's structure—including behavior patterns, routines, habits, and communication—can contribute to dysfunction. However, this approach to therapy can help families become more stable and improve support to individual family members who may need extra help by working to address these issues.

It can be beneficial for families that have dealt with some significant change in their lives. For example, this might involve the death of a family member, a change in the family structure through a divorce, or some trauma such as interpersonal violence or an accident. 

What Are the Strengths of Structural Family Therapy?

Structural family therapy has been shown to be effective at helping to address problems within families. Studies have also demonstrated the efficacy of this type of therapy. 

• A 2019 study looking at the impact of family therapy on adolescents with mental health problems and their families found that therapy incorporating SFT offered several benefits. For example, the results indicated that after treatment, teens exhibited fewer externalizing and internalizing symptoms. In terms of other improvements, parents also reported increased family cohesion, better parental practices, and greater perceived efficacy as a parent.
• A small 2020 case study found that structural family therapy was an effective approach for improving marital mediation and reducing marital distress. However, the study authors noted that follow-up was needed to evaluate the long-term effects of treatment better.

Since its initial development in the 1960s, SFT has become one of the predominant family counseling theories.

The amount of time needed for treatment to be successful often depends on the dynamics of the family and the situation they are facing. Some families may require relatively short-term treatment lasting a few weeks, while others may need more sessions lasting several months. 

Participation and cooperation play an important role in the success of this type of treatment. However, some family members may be less cooperative or may refuse to participate altogether.

If you think that structural family therapy may be helpful, ask your doctor if they can refer you to a professional who practices this type of treatment. You may also search an online directory to locate professionals in your area who specialize in SFT. 

Some questions you might ask before you begin treatment include:

• How much experience does the therapist have with SFT?
• How long treatment is expected to take?
• How will progress be measured?
• What happens if some family members miss therapy sessions?

During your first appointment, your therapist will ask you questions to learn more about the problems you are facing and how your family currently functions. They may ask you to create a family diagram to describe relationships between members of the family and work to get a better view of the dynamic between individuals in the family.

After your initial session, your therapist will then be able to provide a fuller view of your family's treatment plan and what else you can expect during treatment.

Get Help Now

We've tried, tested, and written unbiased reviews of the best online therapy programs including Talkspace, BetterHelp, and ReGain. Find out which option is the best for you.

American Psychological Association. Structural family therapy . APA Dictionary of Psychology.)

Jiménez L, Hidalgo V, Baena S, León A, Lorence B. Effectiveness of structural⁻strategic family therapy in the treatment of adolescents with mental health problems and their families .  Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2019;16(7):1255. doi:10.3390/ijerph16071255

Colapinto J. Mapping in structural family therapy . In: Lebow J, Chambers A, Breunlin DC, eds. Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy . Springer International Publishing; 2019:1-3. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_972-2

Minuchin P, Colapinto J, Minuchin S. Working With Families of the Poor . New York: Guilford; 2007

Sexton T. Functional Family Therapy in Clinical Practice: An Evidence-Based Treatment Model for Working with Troubled Adolescents. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2011.

Ulya Z. Structural family therapy as mediation process for marital conflict (case study) . Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Behavioral Research . 2020;1(1).

Cottone RR. Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy: Individual and Relational Approaches . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2017. doi:10.1891/9780826168665.0011

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Advertisement

Ecosystemic Structural Family Therapy: Theoretical and Clinical Foundations

• Original Paper
• Published: 03 January 2013
• Volume 35 , pages 147–160, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Marion Lindblad-Goldberg 1 &
• William F. Northey Jr. 2  

11k Accesses

17 Citations

Explore all metrics

Ecosystemic structural family therapy (ESFT) is a systemic, strength-based, and trauma-informed family therapy model that has evolved from structural family therapy (SFT; Minuchin in Families and family therapy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1974 ). ESFT is an evidenced-based family therapy approach designed to intervene with families of children who are experiencing behavioral health problems and are at the risk of out-of-home placement. In this article we review the theoretical, applied, and empirical evolution of ESFT relative to extant SFT models. ESFT is based on the fundamental assumption that child, parental, and marital functioning are inextricably linked to their relational environment. Five interrelated constructs guide ESFT therapists in their understanding of clinical problems: family structure; family and individual emotional regulation; individual differences (e.g., historical, biological, cultural, developmental); affective proximity; and family development (Gehart 2010 ). ESFT has an extensive evaluation history dating back to the 1980s involving over 4,000 families in 39 different sites. While ESFT is considered evidence-based, it might be more consistent with “Practice-Based Evidence” given its long, extensive, and successful, history in the child mental health system in Pennsylvania.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Soul of Therapy: The Therapist’s Use of Self in the Therapeutic Relationship

Harry Joseph Aponte

The Processes of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A Review of Meta-Analyses

Nikolaos Kazantzis, Hoang Kim Luong, … Stefan G. Hofmann

Narrative Research

Aponte, H., & Van Deusen, J. (1991). Structural family therapy. In A. S. Gutman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 310–360). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Google Scholar  

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature . New York: E.P. Dutton.

Becvar, D. S., & Becvar, R. J. (1982). Systems theory and family therapy: A primer . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, and practice, 16 , 252–260.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1, attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base . New York: Basic Books.

Byng-Hall, J. (1991). The application of attachment theory to understanding and treatment in family therapy. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 199–215). London: Tavistock Publications.

Colapinto, J. (1991). Structural family therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 417–443). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Department of Public Welfare. (1993). Family based mental health services for children and adolescents (55PA. Code Ch. 5260). Pennsylvania Bulletin, 23 (18), 2127–2136.

Diamond, G. S., Reis, B. F., Diamond, G. M., Siqueland, L., & Isaacs, L. (2002). Attachment-based family therapy for depressed adolescents: A treatment development study. Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41 , 1190–1196.

Dore, M. (1991). Effectiveness of state-wide implementation of a family-based approach to children’s mental health services. In A. Algarin & R. Friedman (Eds.), A system of care for children’s mental health: Expanding the research base (pp. 31–37). Tampa, FL: Research and Training Center for Children’s Mental Health, Florida Mental Health Institute.

Dore, M. (1996). Annual research report on family-based services . Harrisburg, PA: Bureau of Children’s Services, Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health.

Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (2006). Treatment manuals do not improve outcomes. In J. C. Norcross, L. E. Beutler, & R. F. Levant (Eds.), Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions (pp. 140–148). Washington, DC: APA.

Elizur, J., & Minuchin, S. (1989). Institutionalizing madness: Families, therapy, and society . New York: Basic Books.

Endicott, J., Spitzer, R. L., Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1976). The Global Assessment Scale: A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33 , 766–771.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9 , 171–180.

Fishman, H. C. (1993). Intensive structural family therapy: Treating families in their social context . New York: Basic Books.

Gehart, D. (2010). Mastering competencies in family therapy: A practical approach to theory and clinical case documentation . Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Haley, J. (1987). Problem-solving therapy . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hansen, M., Litzelman, A., & Salter, B. (2002). Serious emotional disturbance: Working with families (Ch. 20). In D. T. Marsh & M. A. Fristad (Eds.), Handbook of serious emotional disturbance in children and adolescents (pp. 375–391). New York: Wiley.

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of antisocial behavior in children and adolescents . New York: Guilford Press.

Hyde, P. S., Falls, K., Morris, J. A., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2003). Turning knowledge into practice: A manual for behavioral health administrators and practitioners about understanding and implementing evidenced-based practices . Albuquerque, NM: The American College of Mental Health Administration.

Jackson, D. D. (1957). The question of family homeostasis. The Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement, 31 , 79–90.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Johnson, S. M. (1996). The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy: Creating connection . New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Lindblad-Goldberg M., & Jones, C. W. (2005). Contemporary structural family therapy: The basics. Family Therapy Magazine, September/October . Alexandria, VA: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

Jones, C. W., & Lindblad-Goldberg, M. (2002). Ecosystemic structural family therapy: Elaborations of theory and practice. In F. Kaslow (Series Ed.) & R. Massey and S. Massey (Vol. Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychotherapy: Vol. III. Interpersonal, humanistic and existential models (pp. 3–33). New York: Wiley.

Jones, C. W., & Lindblad-Goldberg, M. (2006). An ecosystemic structural family therapy approach to home-based intervention: A treatment manual . Philadelphia, PA: The Philadelphia Child & Family Therapy Training Center.

Lee, Y. T. (2011). Structural family therapy. In L. Metcalf (Ed.), Marriage and family therapy: A practice orientated approach (pp. 229–254). New York: Springer.

Liddle, H. A. (2000). Multidimensional family therapy treatment manual for Cannabis Youth Treatment Multi-site Collaborative Project . Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

Lindblad-Goldberg, M. (1986). Elective mutism in families with young children. In J. Hansen (Series Ed.) and Combrinck-Graham (Ed.) Treating young children in family therapy (pp. 38–50). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Lindblad-Goldberg, M. (2006). Successful African-American single-parent families. In L. Combrinck-Graham (Ed.), Children and families (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.

Lindblad-Goldberg, M. (2011). Ecosystemic structural family therapy training manual . Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Child and Family Therapy Training Center.

Lindblad-Goldberg, M., Dore, M., & Stern, L. (1998). Creating competence from chaos: A comprehensive guide to home-based services . New York: Norton.

Lindblad-Goldberg, M., Igle, E., & Simms, S. (2011). Ecosystemic structural family therapy with couples. In D. Carson & M. Casado-Kehoe (Eds.), Case studies in couple’s therapy: Theory based approaches (pp. 121–131). New York: Routledge.

Lindblad-Goldberg, M., Jones, C. W., & Dore, M. (2004). Effective family-based mental health services for youth with serious emotional disturbance in Pennsylvania: The ecosystemic structural family therapy model . Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Child and Family Therapy Training Center.

Littell, J. H. (2005). Lessons from a systematic review of effects of Multisystemic Therapy. Children and Youth Services Review, 27 , 445–463.

Lourie, I. S. (2000, September). As the twig bent. Readings: A Journal of Reviews and Commentary in Mental Health, 15 , 18–22.

Marvin, R. S., & Stewart, R. B. (1990). A family systems framework for the study of attachment. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Research and intervention (pp. 51–86). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Minuchin, S., & Nichols, M. (1993). Family healing . New York: Free Press.

Minuchin, S., Rosman, B., & Baker, L. (1978). Psychosomatic families . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nichols, M. P., & Fellenberg, S. (2000). The effective use of enactments in family therapy: A discovery-oriented process study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26 , 143–152.

Nichols, M., & Schwartz, R. (1998). Family therapy: Concepts and methods . Needham, Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Northey, W. F, Jr. (2009). Effectiveness research: A view from The U.S.A. Journal of Family Therapy, 31 , 75–84.

Northey, W. F, Jr, & Hodgson, J. (2008). Empirically supported therapies: Training opportunities and evidence of success. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 19 , 50–84.

Shore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Szapocznik, J., & William, R. A. (2000). Brief strategic family therapy: Twenty-five years of interplay among theory, research and practice in adolescent behavior problems and drug abuse. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3 , 117–134.

Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Towards a rationale diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric Annals, 35 , 401–408.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Some tentative axioms of communication. In Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes (pp. 48–71). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Wood, B. L., Klebba, K. B., & Miller, B. D. (2000). Evolving the biobehavioral family model: The fit of attachment. Family Process, 39 , 319–344.

Woods, L. J. (1988, May–June). Home-based family therapy. Social Work , pp. 211–214.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Philadelphia Child and Family Therapy Training Center, Inc., P. O. Box 4092, Philadelphia, PA, 19118-8092, USA

Marion Lindblad-Goldberg

N-P Consulting and Therapeutic Services, Wilmington, DE, USA

William F. Northey Jr.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marion Lindblad-Goldberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lindblad-Goldberg, M., Northey, W.F. Ecosystemic Structural Family Therapy: Theoretical and Clinical Foundations. Contemp Fam Ther 35 , 147–160 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-012-9224-4

Download citation

Published : 03 January 2013

Issue Date : March 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-012-9224-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ecosystemic structural family therapy
• Structural family therapy
• Family therapy
• Clinical interventions
• Evidence-based models
• Practice-based evidence
• Child mental health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Structural Family Therapy

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Structural family therapy is a type of therapy that focuses on the interactions between family members. Looking at the family as a system, structural family therapists work to improve communication between members of the family and encourage adjustments in the rules that govern how the family functions (its structure).

The treatment’s distinctive features are the conception of the family as a structural system, and the active engagement of the therapist in the process of restructuring the way the system works in order to adjust elements that cause dysfunction. This restructuring can include family boundaries , hierarchies of power, and reactions by family members to major life changes.

Structural Family Therapy allows everyone in the family to hear the viewpoint of the others, and allows the therapist to observe how the family interacts in real life, in contrast with individual therapies, where the therapist hears about family dynamics recounted by a single individual.

“The idea of structural family therapy sprang out of a sense that what we were doing was not working,” explained Salvador Minuchin, the principal creator of structural family therapy. “We were all very much oriented toward psychodynamic-oriented psychological approaches, and they didn’t work.”

Minuchin developed structural family therapy in the 1960s. He believed that the more members of a family participate, including extended family members, in some cases, the better the outcome of the treatment would be. The structural family therapy approach has become one of the predominant family counseling theories in the field.

• When It's Used
• What to Expect
• How it Works
• What to Look for in a Structural Family Therapist

Structural family therapy is most often used by families experiencing distress or tension, particularly with teenage children. It is most commonly used in cases of:

• Adolescent behavioral and mood disorders
• Eating disorders
• Blending families
• Families affected by illness or death
• Families in which a parent suffers from a mental health condition
• Significant changes in family life, such as a parent losing a job, moving cities, or a change in gender identity or sexual orientation among a member of the family

You should expect a therapy approach in which the therapist is active in the treatment, making suggestions and directing discussions or arguments. Therapists may, at times, change the format of sessions, by changing the position of family members seated in the room, asking some family members to leave the session temporarily while others stay, and even, in some cases, by bringing some members of the family on the other side of a one-way mirror to observe the conversation of other members of the family.

Some of the key tenets of structural family therapy include:

• Joining : Joining is a process whereby the therapist gets to know the family and sets expectations for treatment. A therapist may ask questions about the family, show their support of the family, and explain the technique of the therapy.
• Mapping : Mapping is an effort to understand a family’s rules, structures, and patterns. A therapist may draw a diagram and write notes themselves, or may hand members of the family a pencil and paper and ask them to map these functions of the family themselves.
• Unbalancing : Unbalancing is the act of the therapist challenging family members. It is not meant to be confrontational, but to push family members to reconsider their perception of how the family operates.
• Reframing : Reframing is a method by which the therapist will present the family’s challenges or complaints. Therapists will often reframe the problem of an individual in the family as a problem that may be a result of the structure and patterns of family dynamics.
• Enactment : Enactment is the plan for the future. Once the family’s structure has been observed and examined, the therapist, with input from the family, will introduce ideas and practices for the family to execute.

The fundamental goal of structural family therapy is to help a family reorganize the way its members interact with each other in order to work more happily and cohesively as a unit and be able to adapt to stressors that may pop up in the course of life.

Therapists may recommend to parents alter their behavior towards their children depending on whether the children need more independence or more support and guidance. They may suggest strategies to parents or other caregivers that highlight the need to present a united front. Ultimately, the objective of the approach is to strengthen the family as a system.

Treatment can last for several weeks or several months, depending on the family.

It’s most important to look for someone with experience in the approach and someone with whom you feel comfortable talking about sensitive subjects in front of your family.

Some questions you might want to ask at a consultation include:

• How the therapist will measure progress
• What will happen if members of the family have to miss sessions from time to time
• The amount of experience the therapist has with this specific approach

There is no official accreditation required to practice structural family therapy, but when searching for a therapist online, they will typically include the approach as a treatment option if they have experience with it.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience