Emma's Journey with Dissociative Identity Disorder
IMG_6643.png

BLOG

Posts in Self-Help
How to Find a Therapist

Below is part of the transcript from episode 275, in which we answered an email about how to find a therapist:

Finding a new therapist is brutal. Brutal.

 So for those who have not had this experience, let's literally just pause the emails for a minute and walk through this. Let me show you on our side of things as a client—as a survivor—what that's like. So knowing that I need someone who can help with trauma, and someone who can help with dissociative disorders, that's what I start my search with when I'm looking for a new therapist. And the easiest way these days, obviously, is to look online. You can look at the EMDRIA site. You can look at the ISSTD site. You could look at sensorimotor. You could find a particular modality if you really want something specific. Or you can just do a general search for trauma and dissociation therapy or something like that. Right? I don't usually search for DID therapist or dissociative identity disorder therapist, because it limits the results so much that it's you almost can't find anything because most people don't advertise that specifically. But they may advertise dissociative disorders or have that listed either on their Psychology Today profile—which again guys, those are not vetted at all, they're just uploaded by therapists, so you still have to be super careful—or they might have it listed on their website. Okay, so that's the first thing I search for.

 And then when I find someone and I look at their profile or their website and it looks like not crazy and not creepy, because sometimes you pull up a profile or a website and there's like weird stuff in their office, or it looks creepy, or it's all dark, or you're just not comfortable for some reason. Like, for us, our agreement is to trust our intuition. So if something feels off just looking at the website or their profile, we definitely just skip that one. Because why go in person to feel something we can already feel just looking. So again, that may limit some of our choices, but it also protects us in a way of adding safety by paying attention to the signals we're getting. They may not be always accurate because there's not actually a lot of information to go by, but it's enough to pay attention. And as survivors, I feel like we're really in tune with that, if we will listen to it. So that's the next step.

 And then out of the results that are left, it's a matter of matching, at least for us in America, it is matching insurance and availability. Like can you see me when I'm available to be seen, are you also available? And also can I actually afford to see you? Because therapy is expensive. And as a therapist, I also would like to get paid. And yes, there's so much paperwork that we have to do that is not within the 45 minutes or hour of our session time. And there are trainings we have to do and certifications we have to keep, plus paying for office or zoom or whatever. All of that overhead cost is legitimate. So I get it because I am a therapist, and I am trying to have an office and things like that. And all of those costs don't even count trying to feed my children or actually provide for my family. Like it's even just sustaining to keep the office open so that I can continue to be available for people. So I get that it's difficult. But also as a parent of six children with lots of medical needs, and eight people in our family, our budget is very, very tight, especially through the pandemic. One of our jobs was traveling for the refugee work and the war zones and the disaster sites. We can't do that during the pandemic. So that money is completely on hold, which was our primary income. And most of our clients don't pay us as much as they did before because also the pandemic has impacted them. But we still want to help. And so what do you do? It's a fine line of navigating all that, right. So the therapist’s job, though, is to negotiate the fees for their therapy services that they offer, according to what they are able to do. And then I have to offer what I can do and choose based on what I'm able to pay or not. And when that matches, it works out; when it doesn't match, it doesn't work out. And sometimes that's really hard.

 Okay, so when it looks like there's a match for fees based on their profile or their website, and it's someone that I maybe could budget in, and they also see trauma and dissociation, then it's a matter of contacting them to see if they're actually available. The challenge at this stage of things is that the therapists who are really good, are usually really full. And so they have a waitlist, or it's difficult to schedule with them, and that can be really daunting. Especially if you feel like you're in a bit of a crisis and someone can't see you fairly quickly. It's really difficult. So let me read you some of the emails we have actually gotten back from people and why we chose to see them or did not choose to see them.

 Okay, so my first example was a lady we contacted. And I'm not going to say any names. And it doesn't give you away because we had to see in the last year therapist in like a four state area, okay. And because of telehealth, that could be anywhere in those states. So I don't think I'm disclosing anything inappropriate. But let me share what that experience is like. So to be clear, for me because I am deaf with cochlear implants, when I contact a new therapists I have to do it over email. I cannot just call the office and them call me back. Like you can't play phone tag with a deaf phone. That's not how it works. I can call out with some special equipment, but it's very difficult and I usually have to have the husband with me. And so I don't do that very often. Although it's something I'm trying to practice a little bit, but it's very difficult. So for something like this, especially because I'm also extra anxious, I do it by email. Because you're doing it by email, and you're not actually signed up into someone's like secure portal or whatever yet, you don't want to give lots of information that is private. Like don't send them your insurance card over email. Don't tell them your birthday or social security card number over email. Does that make sense? But you can say, “Hey, this is me. I'm looking for a therapist on these issues, like trauma and dissociation. And I'm available on these days. Do you have any openings? Do you think you we might be a good fit?” Something like that. And then usually what happens, either they email you back, or they send you a link to their portal so that you can talk to them privately. Or you can set up a time to actually have a free phone consult where you can sort of talk on the phone and see if you feel like a fit and make an appointment. So there's several different things that can happen next, but generally, that's how it goes.

 So let me share with you some of the emails. One email that I got back last year was from someone who said: I received your email. I would be happy to discuss with you my services. Are you available at such and such a time. I do work with trauma and dissociative disorders, and I'm also a nurse. So I have special interest in working with medical trauma. I have availability at the following times if you would like to schedule an appointment. Now, you guys, that was like an ideal email. And of course, I snatched her up. And I wanted to see her because she understood medical trauma. So I thought that would be helpful for Em dealing with our daughter and her medical needs. There were things that are difficult to explain to people that maybe she would understand right away. And so we connected with her. But then it turned out that she could not take our insurance and so we did not get to see her.

 Another email that we got back from someone last year was really good example as well, said: Thank you for your email. I do take your insurance, and I also help with trauma. Unfortunately, my waitlist is until late March or early April. If you don't mind waiting that long you can call our office at this number and schedule an appointment and also get on our waitlist. I also work with families if that would be helpful to you. Let me know which direction you want to go. So she was very clear about when she was available, whether she took my insurance or not, and how she could help. This is the woman that actually ended up being our family therapist where we used to all go, all eight of us for the children, and just hang out there for two hours rotating everybody through. And she was amazing. And so one thing that was also helpful as she responded so quickly, and she was available by email, which I really need as a deaf person. I do not abuse that privilege. I do not send crisis messages to the therapist. So that one worked out, but for the children, not for us.

 As the year progressed last year and the pandemic started, I also needed to find someone who specifically would do telehealth because I was not able to go into the office. And where I live, not everyone took it seriously in the beginning. And so some people were not available on telehealth. So since that was something I needed, that was something to ask upfront. So a good example of this response from a therapist that we actually saw until we moved was: Hi. Thank you for touching base. I do currently have a few openings. Let me know what days and times work for you. I do take your insurance, no problem there. I will be supportive of you in your healing journey and however you integrate your beliefs and family into that just let me know as we go. At this point, I'm doing exclusively telemedicine, I'm considering doing that long term, or with some in office after the pandemic. You can email me here and you can text my phone number at this number. So she was very clear about what is okay and what is not okay with her, her availability, and what she can help with or not. And I asked, I followed up with some more detail questions, and at that point moved to the portal so that I could ask more specific questions privately. And this person we saw most of the beginning of the summer until we moved. So this one really worked out and we only didn't get to stay with her because we had to move.

 So those are some good examples. Let me give you some not so good examples. This person emailed back and said: Good afternoon. I do offer telehealth, but please call the clinic to schedule an appointment. They do all of that for me. Thank you for reaching out. So when at that point, I realized that this person was actually in a larger practice or some sort of community building, which I already know is too overwhelming for me. So I didn't even reply to that person. If they could not help me get an appointment scheduled and get me into the building the first time, they are not someone who can help me with some of our issues.

 Another person wrote: Thank you for thinking of me. Unfortunately, I have a full caseload right now and do not have room for another client at this time. I know the agency I'm contracted with has several really good trauma therapist, and they maybe could help you. And then ask for so and so, she's great. I think she may have a staff meeting on the day you want. But she could call you back if you wanted. So this person was polite, but totally couldn't help. And if they're a contractor, like they revealed so much about their office dynamics, I just didn't, that was not going to work.

 Another one wrote: Thanks for reaching out. What problems are you experiencing? But that's all that they said. No way to contact them, no way to talk to them privately, and no follow up as far as if they're available to help with some of that. And so that person we did not see.

 Another one said: I use a sliding scale and I do help telehealth, but I'm not contracted for your insurance. I can only bill for children. You could try and then she gave me the number of a community mental health agency, which I appreciate. But again, that was not the setting that was going to work for us. We had already tried that and it was like a walking panic attack just to get into the therapists office. Which is really sad because the therapist was amazing.

 After we moved, a therapist wrote: I am happy to schedule a mental health telesession with you. Are there certain days or times a day that are more open for you? The way we will get started is I will send you an invitation to join our client portal. After joining a client portal, you will find some intake paperwork and a questionnaire. That's also how we do billing. I am happy to answer any more questions you may have on the client portal to protect your privacy. Feel free to reply to this email or use the contact information below, but I will watch for you on the portal. I look forward to hearing from you soon. So this person actually that was an amazing response. It totally worked out. That's who we saw after we moved here until they change portal sites and we somehow got lost in the middle. Their email changed, and their portal site changed, and we just sort of didn't hear back from them. So that was a little bit traumatic because we really liked her.

 Someone else wrote to us: Thank you for your email, I understand that you're looking for an appointment. I'm available for ongoing and consistent support. I do cognitive behavioral with trauma informed in parentheses if that is what you want. That is not what I want you guys, and so I did not reply to them.

 Here's another email from a therapist who did equine therapy. And she was here after we moved. And so we contacted her to try to set the children up with her. And she sent us the link to the portal that worked really well. We filled out all of the paperwork, which takes ages for children's Medicaid, and six of them at that. And so I spent hours and hours and hours, like an entire day, filling out all the paperwork. I got everything signed, I emailed her back PDFs of that, and gave her list of our availability which she had asked for. And then we never heard from her again. And it was so frustrating because we spent hours filling out that paperwork and never heard from her. I still don't know what happened. Like I don't know if she got COVID, or if our paperwork was just lost, or she didn't want to see us after she saw the issues that children had. I don't know, but we never heard from her. So that's another example.

 Here's another one that was really good. This one said: I just got your email, and wanting to send you an invite to my patient portal. You can have a free session so we can get to know each other a little bit and see if we're a fit. I'm also going to send you an invitation for Spruce, which is an app that we can text securely on so that your information is protected, but you can still get ahold of me if you need to, or just share what's going on. Sometimes that's important with trauma clients. We can do video sessions. And we can talk about scheduling sessions during the day. I absolutely have availability during the times you mentioned. And I can meet with you more than once weekly if that would be helpful. And then she gave me a list of her schedule of open times. And you, your choices for payment are these and she gave different ways that we could pay her securely and said, Here's an appointment. You don't have to pay for the first appointment so that we can get to know one another. And this is actually our therapists that we really appreciated this spring who passed away from COVID. She really had things set up in a secure way and we felt safe with her. So then we had to do it all again. When our therapist died from COVID, we had to go through this all again.

 So one person wrote back: I'm taking new clients now, yes. We can do in person or telehealth. I can help you with trauma. It's actually something I really enjoy helping people through. My sessions are $250 out of pocket. Let me know when you want to meet. Yeah, you guys. That didn't happen. I don't have $250 a pop.

 So the next one wrote back and said: I can help with trauma, and here are some of the trainings I've done and experiences I have that shows I'm able to do so. Which I actually really appreciated. However, I get several requests for telehealth, so I'm thinking I will move those to their own day. Do you want to do this day only at this time? So then she talked about her schedule, and we set an appointment, and that was fine. But then she emailed back and had to move things because she decided to move of her telehealth people to one day. And then she emailed again because she had to cancel for something else she was doing. Like, she was just too busy. So that one didn't work out.

 There were other emails we've gotten that literally said: I can help with your issues. But I don't have time right now. Like, if you can’t squeeze me in for an hour, there's no way that you can squeeze me into your head space. You know what I mean? Like, if they don't have time to just schedule something, then they certainly don't have time to actually like hold space and presence with us. When DID is such a long term and intense experience, which I already feel guilty for. Like I'm going into therapy, feeling bad for what I'm going to have to put this person through just for me to get better. Like it feels so yucky and abusive, even if that's all not like entirely accurate thinking. Or even if the therapist can explain how it's done from their side of things. Which technically I understand, because I get in that role too for work, right. So it's really tricky.

 The therapist we have now that we have been able to see five times in a row, we went ahead and set up with her because she gave us lots of availability times. She was careful about our confidentiality. She demonstrated that she understood about trauma and dissociation without being overly intrusive before we were ready to go there. And because she was available on telehealth and had a sliding scale that we could do within the budget of our family, even though we don't actually even have that money. Like it's really, really hard, right. But we can work extra and just do our best because being tired and worn out is somehow better than not making it. Right, so.

 So we accepted an appointment with that therapist, and then going to the first session, and feeling how she talked about things, the respectful language that she used, this safety that she created in the rapport between us, even though clearly we have some serious therapy issues. And her capacity to sort of get some of that information out of us in a general way without being pushy, is what got us back for this second appointment.

 The second appointment we're just going to call a wash, because we basically cried the whole time, because our other therapist was dead, and the therapist before that is just like a hole in our heart, right. And so there is that just pain. But it was coming out and it was coming out in a safe place. And it was coming out in a way that we were not alone. And so that is why we showed up for the third appointment.

 The third appointment, she gave us some new resources, which we'll talk about on the podcast later. But some books we hadn't even heard of, although you probably have heard of them, but we hadn't heard of them. And gave us some homework to get these books and to read some specific things to talk about how they apply to us. And that is when we started learning and giving that framework of a way to ease back into therapy through a safe context, as opposed to jumping back into trying to establish a relationship with a therapist. Because right now that's where our wound is. And so that's not happening. There is no parade of altars. There no little showing up in therapy, even if it's to distract things. Like they are not coming. They are not participating. They are not going there. And we won't let them. Like, that it hurts too much. But having this framework of let's talk about dissociation, and let's talk about trauma through these books, and in a very safe window of tolerance kind of way, gave us a way to at least engage with the process and to attempt to hold on in a way that at least put some footing under our feet a little bit again. And that's why we showed up for the fourth appointment.

 At the fourth appointment, she had all kinds of stuff ready that reminded us of things that we learned from like Christine Forner about the brain, and some of the things we've learned through the ISSTD courses over the last year. And so that was familiar enough that it built somehow on this safety through the books and that framework. It added a layer of familiarity, which helped us bring down those walls just a little bit. Not enough to engage, not enough to give any pieces away. And we spent the whole time crying again. So it was embarrassing. But she used some art, we did some art together. And she used some of the reading to help us put into words what was going on and noticing patterns of what was triggering these big responses that would get us so tangled with our friends, or so tangled from what happened in therapy before. And that at least was like a balm on the wound, even though it's so raw and vulnerable. And so that was huge. And that's what got us back to the fifth session.

 And then in the fifth session, we somehow through conversations stumbled upon both of us knowing—like Bible knowing—I don't mean the actual Bible. But I mean, like our other Bible is the Wolves book, the Women Who Run With the Wolves. And she is the first person that we have ever met, who not only also knew the book, but like knew knew the book. Like we could quote something or reference something to try to express what we were feeling. And she got it. And you guys for whatever reason, that nailed it. Like it was out of the ballpark. It is the first time that we felt safe and comfortable and expressive in therapy in over a year, almost two years. It was so good. And it was so helpful. And she gave so much homework, which we're not thrilled about. But all of this we'll be talking about in other episodes to share what we're learning and how things are progressing. But yes, finally, things are going very well.

 So I'm sorry to go off on all that tangent, but I'm saying I get it and finding a new therapist is exhausting. But also, when you find that therapist that knows how to help you and is accessible, and is available, and is respectful of your experience, and builds safety in that way. You guys, you've got to do everything on your end to do that work. To honor that opportunity. It is such a privilege space. It is such a sacred space. And there is hope there again in a way there hasn't been in a long time.

Call for Coders

Melissa C. Water is part of “The Bag System” and is working toward creating a desktop application for assisting communication in Dissociative Identity Disorder systems. She has fully designed the concept behind the app’s features and options. The website where you can find the video with the detailed mock-up of the app can be found at multipliedbyone.com.

If you are available to donate time to coding the app, please contact Melissa directly at contact@multipliedbyone.com.

Melissa has been recently diagnosed with DID and has spoken of this on her YouTube channels, “Idranktheseawater” and “Coming Inside Out.” Melissa has been on radio shows, podcasts, spoken at conferences, and has been a guest on Canadian Television documentaries on the topic of Tourette syndrome, for which she advocates. The shows were “Employable Me,” and “You Can’t Ask that,”

Melissa started a movement following the trending #GetSplitOffNetflix hashtag on Twitter where rather than focusing on what we are not, we talk about our raw reality by posting about #HumanizingOurDIDTruth @OurDIDTruth

Melissa C. Water.jpeg
Guest: Richard Schwartz, PhD (Internal Family Systems)

Our guest this week was Richard Schwartz, PhD, who developed the Internal Family Systems (IFS) model of treatment for trauma and other therapeutic issues:

Schwartz_Richard_600x600-600x600.jpg

Richard Schwartz began his career as a systemic family therapist and an academic. Grounded in systems thinking, Dr. Schwartz developed Internal Family Systems (IFS) in response to clients’ descriptions of various parts within themselves. He focused on the relationships among these parts and noticed that there were systemic patterns to the way they were organized across clients. He also found that when the clients’ parts felt safe and were allowed to relax, the clients would experience spontaneously the qualities of confidence, openness, and compassion that Dr. Schwartz came to call the Self. He found that when in that state of Self, clients would know how to heal their parts.

A featured speaker for national professional organizations, Dr. Schwartz has published many books and over fifty articles about IFS. You can read more about him and about IFS on his website HERE.

ISSTD CONFERENCE POSTER SESSION 2020: The 2019 PPWC Survey Results

On today’s podcast, we share the PPWC Survey Results about Plural Experience, as an expression of plural culture and shared experiences. These results were accepted for a Poster Session at the 2020 ISSTD Conference in San Francisco. However, as you now know, the conference was cancelled at the last minute due to efforts of government officials’ attempts at controlling the Coronavirus through social distancing. Because we were not able to share our poster, we did take pictures of it and do share them below.

IMG_0417.jpg

As part of the 2019 Plural Positivity World Conference (PPWC), we helped with a survey with results to be shared in 2020. This Plural Positivity Experience survey was not associated with any research project, nor did the survey go through any review panel process. There was input from the Plural community itself, including deciding which contextual questions to include (such as the ACE’s questionnaire) as well as verbiage options to be as inclusive as possible for the Plural experience. Again, this was not a research project, but was an expression of the Plural experience, both individually and as a community.

Please note:

  • Participants were informed that the survey results would be shared during the 2020 PPWC Conference.

  • To continue the survey, participants had to agree that they understood this and that they were over 18.

  • Any participant who did not agree to have their results shared or who were under 18 were excluded from the survey results published below.

  • It was explicitly stated, and participants agreed to understanding, that the questions were only for information about their experiences and not at all diagnostic in nature.

  • Participants were also warned that due to the nature of trauma-specific questions, they could be triggered during the survey. Resources and referrals for support were offered, and system-wide self care was encouraged before, during, and after participating in the survey.

IMG_0420.jpg

SURVEY DESIGN

This survey was designed by plurals themselves, as a community, following online discussions in support groups, peer mentoring groups, and a variety of social platforms. The common threads of interest were narrowed down and presented in polls on the social platforms. From these results, the questions included in the survey were designed. While obviously vast and covering a multiplicity (pun intended) of areas that would be too many variables for a research project, this was again just the general areas of experience that plurals themselves wanted to know more about and were interested in learning in regards to shared experiences.

The survey was in English.

The survey took an average of 26 minutes to complete.

The first page of the survey was simply exclusionary material clarifying the purpose, concerns, and limitations of the survey. Any “no” responses exited the participant from the survey. Questions included:

  1. I am over the age of 18.

  2. I understand the screening tools used in this survey are for data gathering only, and not meant to be diagnostic in nature.

  3. I understand that due to the nature of the survey in regards to trauma and dissociation, some of the questions may be triggering.  I am safe and able to care for myself during and after this survey, and know where and how to seek support if I need help.

  4. I understand I can quit this survey at any time.

  5. I understand the data gathered from this survey is non-identifiable, and that the survey is done with SSL encryption.

  6. I understand that the data results will be combined, and that the overall results will be shared in the Plural Positivity World Conference for plurals, by plurals.  I understand that the data results will be shared with the conference via the System Speak podcast, which is a public podcast already on air.  I understand that the podcast may be linked to from other blogs, YouTube Channels, and support groups online.  I understand that, while this is not an official research project, the clinical community as a whole may have access to these results generally and the related non-identifiable data.

  7. I understand these things and consent to this survey.

The second page of the survey were demographics, including country, identified gender, body age, levels of education for self and each parent. It also included context questions regarding perception of trauma impact on education, frequented online resources, government assistance, housing stability, and patterns of sleeping, eating, and exercise.

The third page of the survey were the questions from the Dissociative Experiences Scale, again clarified that this was for appropriateness of the survey and not for diagnostic purposes.

The fourth page of the survey were the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) questions.

The fifth page of the survey was about therapeutic experiences, including: number of therapists prior to diagnosis, number of therapists since diagnosis, reasons for changing therapists, current reported diagnosis, ritual abuse identification, how therapy is paid for, positive and negative experiences with therapists, what does and does not feel safe in therapy, misdiagnosis experiences, treatment goals, and integration perspectives.

The final page of the survey was cultural, about the personal experiences and identification of or with the integration process and views on functional multiplicity.

There were no research analyses done with the data, beyond the collective-per-question results shared below, or any correlation conclusions drawn from this survey due to this not being an actual research project and other obvious limitations to this survey.

That said, we do believe it to be informational about the common experiences of the Plural community as a whole, and that the survey could be informational upon reflection when considering future clinical studies.

IMG_0421.jpg

SURVEY PARTICIPATION

The PPWC organizers had an initial goal of 100 responses from different people diagnosed with DID or otherwise identifying as “multiple” or “plural”.

The link to the survey was shared in all known dissociative disorder and plural community support groups on Facebook, posted and shared on Twitter, and then also explained and shared on other communities including Discord, Reddit, and Tumblr.

The link was also left live on this website, and we did discuss it on the podcast.

The link was left live for six months so that as many could participate in the survey as possible.

Ultimately, the survey received 863 responses from different IP addresses (which were not tracked or recorded, but filtered only for non-repetition of the survey).

These responses came from 61 different countries, including:

  • North America: Canada, United States, Mexico, and Panama;

  • South America: Columbia, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile;

  • Europe: Iceland, Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Greece;

  • Africa: Morocco, Ghana, Egypt, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa;

  • Asia: Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Nepal, China, Thailand, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, Russia, South Korea, Japan; and

  • Australia and New Zealand.

The survey had a 92% completion rate. An additional 6% completed more than 75% of the survey, but needed to stop due to length of the survey. 1% had to stop the survey because of triggers. The final 1% did not complete the survey and did not explain why.

RESULTS

PAGE ONE: Clarifying Material and Consent to the Survey

Only participants who answered “Yes” to the first seven questions (see above) were included in the results below.

PAGE TWO: Demographics

Participant countries were listed above.

In regards to identified gender:

  • 54% identified as female;

  • 9% identified as male;

  • 9% identified as non-binary;

  • 8% identified as trans male;

  • 4% identified as gender queer;

  • 3% identified as trans female;

  • 2% identified as gender fluid;

  • 2% identified as non-conforming;

  • 1% identified as gender variant; and

  • 1% identified as questioning.

4% listed “other” as their identified gender, and reported that they did not want to answer.

“Female” and “Trans female” as well as “Male” and “Trans Male” were included separately not to divide the genders (“female” and “trans female” being the same gender, and “male” and “trans male” being the same gender), but simply to clarify experiences in everyone’s request for their journey to be included and reflected.

The remaining percent were decimals in the above percents, as will also be the case with the remaining results below.

In regards to the actual body age, people reported that":

  • 43% were ages 25-34;

  • 20% were 18-24;

  • 16% were 35-44;

  • 13% were 45-54;

  • 2% were 55-64; and

  • 1% was over 65.

We would suggest that the online platforms provided access to younger populations not usually included in research studies. We would also suggest that the online platforms were more accessible to those who are in rural areas and in other geographic locations not usually available to participate in research studies.

In regards to the participants’ fathers’ education:

  • 26% had high school education only;

  • 21% had graduate level education;

  • 20% had bachelor’s level education;

  • 17% had some college but no degree;

  • 7% had an associate’s degree; and

  • 6% did not complete high school.

In regards to the participants’ mothers’ education:

  • 25% had a high school degree only;

  • 18% had some college but no degree;

  • 18% had a bachelor’s degree;

  • 14% had a graduate level education;

  • 11% had an associate’s degree; and

  • 11% did not complete high school.

For participants themselves:

  • 35% have some college education but no degree;

  • 22% have a bachelor degree;

  • 16% have a high school degree only;

  • 11% have a graduate degree;

  • 9% have an associate’s degree; and

  • 4% have not finished high school.

For context, remember that 20% of the participants were in the age group of 18-24; however, that said, more participants have finished high school than their parents. More have some college, even if they have not finished a degree. More have associate’s degrees than their fathers. More have bachelor’s degrees.

Of these, in regards to how their trauma histories impacted their educational efforts, participants reported that:

  • 34% felt their trauma impacted their education “a great deal”;

  • 25% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot, but I struggled through”;

  • 13% felt their trauma impacted their education “a lot”;

  • 7% felt they were able to complete the education they wanted;

  • 6% felt their trauma “moderately” impacted their education;

  • 5% felt their education was impacted by trauma “some, but I dealt with it okay”;

  • 4% felt their trauma impacted their education “a little”; and

  • 1% felt their trauma did not impact their education.

As for online platforms survivors frequently use for support:

  • 78% use Facebook;

  • 77% use YouTube;

  • 70% use Facebook support groups;

  • 36% use professional and/or clinical research sites;

  • 32% use Twitter;

  • 28% use Podcasts;

  • 24% use Reddit;

  • 22% use Tumblr; and

  • 20% use organizational sites.

As for level of functioning and assistance needed:

  • 59% of participants reported they are not on any social security, housing assistance, or food stamps;

  • 27% of participants reported they are on social benefits;

  • 8% of participants reported they use social benefits, as do others in their household; and

  • 3% of participants reported they do not, but someone else in their household does.

As for housing stability, participants reported that in the last five years:

  • 24% have not moved;

  • 20% have moved once;

  • 15% have moved three times;

  • 13% have moved twice;

  • 7% have moved five times;

  • 7% have moved more than ten times;

  • 4% have moved six times;

  • 2% have moved seven times;

  • 2% have moved four times;

  • 1% have moved eight times; and

  • 1% have moved nine times.

In regards to physical care, the survey included questions about sleep, eating, and exercise.

In regards to sleep, participants reported that:

  • 54% do not exercise at all, due either to preference or medical condition;

  • 21% exercise twice a week;

  • 13% exercise once a week; and

  • 10% exercise five times a week.

No other responses were reported on that question.

In regards to eating, participants reported that:

  • 36% eat twice a day;

  • 24% eat three times a day;

  • 15% eat smaller amounts four times a day;

  • 11% eat just once a day; and

  • 6% reported that eating is difficult, and so they leave food out and “whoever inside” just “grazes” throughout the day if and when they are able to eat something.

In addition,

  • 34% reported they struggle to eat five to six days a week;

  • 20% struggle to eat one to two days a week;

  • 20% do not struggle at all to eat;

  • 18% struggle to eat three to four days a week; and

  • 6% do not miss meals no matter what, nor do they find it difficult to eat.

In regards to sleeping, participants reported that:

  • 28% sleep eight hours or more a night because they have help with medication;

  • 22% sleep six to eight hours a night without the use of medication;

  • 24% sleep four to five hours a night without the use of medication;

  • 21% sleep three to four hours a night without the use of medication; and

  • 4% sleep one to three hours a night without medication.

In addition,

  • 24% rarely have nightmares;

  • 22% have nightmares one to two nights a week;

  • 18% used to have nightmares, but not so much since starting therapy;

  • 15% feel like they still have nightmares every night;

  • 11% have nightmares three to four nights a week; and

  • 7% have nightmares five to six nights a week.

IMG_0422.jpg

PAGE THREE: Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) -II

The DES was included for context of what issues participants struggle with and which populations were completing the survey. It was not used for any diagnostic purposes, nor were the results saved in anyway by specific participants. Rather, the algorithm of responses scored this page per participant but only reported in the results of the page in the percentage of participants who scored in each range. So, we were not informed of which DES score goes with which participant. We only know what percentage of each possible DES score. That was intentional, as an additional buffer for privacy since this is not a clinical research study or diagnosis in any way. Participants were not informed of their individual score, nor was this reported to us in anyway. Individual DES-II scores were not reported or disclosed to anyone in any way.

Of the participants in this survey, 89% scored above 30 on the DES-II. 6% scored between 27-30. 4% scored between 24-26. 1% of participants scored 23 or below.

The high scores were expected, due to the population receiving notice of and participating in this survey were primarily those already in treatment for or aware of their own issues of trauma and dissociation.

Please note that higher scores (30 and above) only indicate high levels of dissociation, and are not indicative of specific diagnosis in and of themselves.

Again, the inclusion of the DES-II was only as a measurement of experience in the context of this survey; no clinical interview, structured or otherwise, was part of this survey, and no diagnoses were given to any participant.

For more information about the DES-II, please visit the ISSTD website. To take an online version of the DES-II, CLICK HERE.

PAGE FOUR: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE)

We included the ACE questions by request of the community due to increasing discussion within the community of the physiological impact of trauma long-term.

The ACE study questions were broken down into the questions listed below, to which participants could answer “yes” or “no”. Again, a specific participant’s answers were not saved per participant, but rather as a poll for how many participants answered yes to each question. This was both in protection of people’s privacy and because the survey was not being given in a clinical setting. 4% of participants opted out of this page due to the nature of the triggering questions regarding their own trauma. Another 1% declined to participate for other unspecified reasons. The positive results endorsed by those participants who completed this set of questions are given as follows:

  1.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate you?

    80% YES

  2.   Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt?

    78% YES

  3. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual way?

    66% YES

  4. Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever… Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you?

    52% YES

  5. Did you often or very often feel that… No one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special?

    71% YES

  6. Did you often or very often feel that… Your family didn’t look out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each other?

    70% YES

  7. Did you often or very often feel that… You didn’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and had no one to protect you?

    44% YES

  8. Did you often or very often feel that… Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?  Or didn't for some other reasons?

    36% YES

  9. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Push, grab, slap, or throw something at you?

    53% YES

  10. Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very often… Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured?

    45% YES

  11. Was your mother or stepmother: Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her?

    23% YES

  12. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard?

    15% YES

  13. Was your mother or stepmother: Sometimes, often, or very often threatened with a gun or knife or other weapon?

    4% YES

  14. Were your parents separated or divorced?

    49% YES

  15. Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic or who used street drugs?

    47% YES

  16. Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide?

    72% YES

  17. Did a household member go to prison?

    15% YES

It is interesting to note that 7% of participants wished the ACE questions included similar specific questions for their father or stepfather the way it does about the mother or stepmother, as this group of people reported their mothers as the or one of the primary abusers even against their father or stepfather.

IMG_0424.jpg

PAGE FIVE: Therapeutic Experiences

This section of the survey addressed issues regarding therapeutic experiences that the Plural Community had brought up in discussion about what to include in the survey.

In asking about who was in therapy, the participants responded as follows:

  • 58% were currently in therapy at the time;

  • 10% were, but had to quit because their therapist didn’t “believe” in dissociation;

  • 10% wanted to be, but have been unable to find a therapist who works with dissociation;

  • 8% were, but had to stop when their funding was cut or insurance stopped paying for it;

  • 4% were, but their therapist moved;

  • 4% were not currently, but actively looking for a therapist;

  • 3% were, but had to stop because of schedule conflicts; and

  • 1% were not because they chose not to be in therapy.

Not one person responded that they were in therapy and it was entirely covered by insurance.

When asked about how many therapists they had thus far, participants responded that:

  • 21% had been referred more than six times;

  • 18% had been referred more than seven times;

  • 18% had been referred more than twice;

  • 16% had been referred more than three times;

  • 11% had more than eight therapists already;

  • 10% had more than 10 therapists already; and

  • only 4% have only been with one therapist.

The remainder of participants have not yet found a therapist.

When asked why they had seen so many therapists, participants responded as follows (due to multiple experiences with different therapists, participants could report more than one reason, so these percentages do not add up to 100):

  • 48% couldn’t make a positive connection with good rapport;

  • 39% could tell their therapist didn’t know what to do with them;

  • 31% had to move because of related instability;

  • 26% felt their therapist didn’t listen to them;

  • 25% had a therapist tell them they didn’t know how to treat them;

  • 22% felt their therapist did not believe them;

  • 17% had a therapist who moved or left an insurance panel;

  • 9% were abused by a therapist;

  • 8% had a therapist who retired;

  • 8% had schedule conflicts;

  • 7% didn’t believe their therapist when they did get diagnosed, or got scared, and so quit therapy; and

  • 6% left a therapist who was trying to force integration.

“Other” comments included experiences of aging out of a particular school or program, therapist not being able to handle gender identity or sexual orientation issues, being too anxious to keep appointments, finances, and being forced to report abusers.

IMG_0425.jpg

When asked how many therapists it took before getting an accurate diagnosis, the participants responded that:

  • 42% had seen two therapists;

  • 39% still had gotten a proper diagnosis with just one therapist;

  • 16% had to see four therapists;

  • 5% saw six therapists;

  • 3% saw more than eight therapists; and

  • 1% saw more than fifteen therapists prior to getting an accurate diagnosis.

When asked to share their diagnosis if they felt safe doing so, the participant percentages were:

  • 53% DID

  • 15% were not sure;

  • 12% waiting on results of testing or for diagnostic appointments;

  • 8% Complex PTSD

  • 5% PTSD

  • 4% DDNOS

  • 3% OSDD

When asked who did the diagnosing, participants replied that:

  • 54% were diagnosed by a therapist;

  • 24% were diagnosed by a psychiatrist;

  • 23% were diagnosed by case manager or social worker;

  • 5% were diagnosed by a doctor; and

  • 4% were “peer-diagnosed” by a friend who referred them to a clinical professional.

When asked how they identified any experience of S/RA, participants shared that:

  • 56% did not know what the terms were and so did not think it applied to them;

  • 23% knew what the terms were, but also knew it did not apply to them;

  • 7% preferred the term RA/MC (Ritual Abuse/Mind Control);

  • 5% preferred the term (S)RA (Satanic/Ritual Abuse);

  • 4% preferred just the general term of trafficking;

  • 3% preferred the term RA (Ritual Abuse); and

  • 1% preferred the term SRA/MC (Satanic Ritual Abuse / Mind Control).

It is interesting to note that not any single participant chose the more general term of “organizational abuse”, and no single participant endorsed “MC - mind control only”.

When asked about other non-trauma diagnoses:

  • 77% also have Anxiety;

  • 67% also have Depression;

  • 67% have both a Dissociative Disorder and PTSD;

  • 25% have a Panic Disorder;

  • 19% also have OCD;

  • 13% have also been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder;

  • 11% have also been diagnosed with a Bipolar disorder;

  • 6% have another mood disorder diagnosis; and

  • 3% have another personality disorder diagnosis.

When asked about their best therapeutic experiences, participants shared (they could endorse more than one):

  • 80% said the best therapy was when the therapist was good at listening to them;

  • 57% said it was good therapy when they felt safe;

  • 56% said they knew it was good therapy when they got good advice;

  • 52% said it is good therapy when they feel connected;

  • 49% said the best therapeutic experience is when the therapist responds to others inside (alters/parts);

  • 48% said good therapy needs a safe-feeling setting;

  • 45% said it is good therapy when they receive comfort;

  • 40% said it is good therapy when they gain coping skills;

  • 38% said it’s best when they are educated about their mental health issues;

  • 38% said the best therapeutic experience is having access to contact outside sessions WHEN policies make those boundaries clear up front;

  • 38% said the best experience happens when the scheduling is consistent;

  • 27% said the best experience is when they are held accountable for their progress;

  • 27% said the best experience is being able to relax and practice relaxation strategies;

  • 18% said it is good therapy when they get safe hugs (with permission);

  • 13% said it is only a good therapy experience when the office staff also feel safe, both on the phone and for check-in/check-out; and

  • 12% said it is good therapy when the therapist plays with Littles or intentionally includes them when appropriate.

IMG_0426.jpg

When asked about the most helpful techniques their therapists use, participants responded:

  • 87% Listening

  • 72% Reassurance

  • 64% Playing Together

  • 62% Art Therapy

  • 26% Guided Imagery

  • 26% Psychoeducation

  • 24% EMDR

  • 21% Music

  • 19% DBT

  • 18% Meditation

  • 16% CBT

  • 13% Sensory Therapy

  • 11% Sandtray Therapy

  • 10% Horse or Pet Therapy

  • 8% Progressive Muscle Relaxation

  • 5% Yoga

  • 3% Hypnotherapy

Please note that the above list is not an efficacy rating of which techniques are the most effective or produce the best results. These were simply the comfortable techniques experienced by the participant population of this survey. It does not mean any one of those is better or more helpful than another, and may reflect more frequency of use or access than quality of treatment.

When asked what made them feel NOT safe in therapy, the participants endorsed the following:

  • 65% Not knowing how to help me;

  • 56% Not listening to me;

  • 39% Therapist saying my stories were too hard / too much / too intense for them;

  • 37% Therapists refusing to talk to others inside (alters/parts);

  • 32% Discounting my stories;

  • 30% Therapist talking too much about their own stuff during sessions;

  • 25% Not feeling safe with office staff or in office setting;

  • 21% Not available outside of session;

  • 21% Not knowing about vacations or time off ahead of time for scheduling;

  • 20% Concerns about confidentiality;

  • 19% Boundary violations;

  • 18% Therapist being afraid of my insiders (parts/alters);

  • 16% Sudden movements;

  • 15% Rejection of Littles;

  • 13% Touch without permission, even if it was otherwise safe/appropriate;

  • 13% Lack of eye contact;

  • 12% Texting or taking calls from other people during sessions;

  • 8% Not closing the office door during sessions;

  • 3% Deliberate triggering to prove a point, access a particular alter, or test progress;

  • 2% Inappropriate/unwanted religious discussion; and

  • 2% Falling asleep during sessions.

Of participants asked, 18% had been abused by a therapist.

Of these, only 4% reported it.

Of those in therapy, 82% agree with their therapist on their treatment goals. Some of these goals include:

  • 75% Decrease in Anxiety / Panic;

  • 72% Improved Functioning;

  • 67% Memory Work / Specific Trauma Processing;

  • 67% Improved Internal Communication;

  • 66% Compassion for My Self/ves;

  • 62% Improved Mood;

  • 58% Improved Cooperation;

  • 41% Decrease Lost Time;

  • 40% Maintain Functioning;

  • 34% Remembering;

  • 22% Stabilization and Reduce Self-Harm Behaviors;

  • 15% Reduce Interpersonal Drama with Outside Relationships; and

  • 14% Accepting the Diagnosis.

When asked their therapist’s goal for therapy, participants reported:

  • 50% Functional Multiplicity

  • 5% Integration

Another 20% did not know what their therapist goal was or what they thought about integration or functional multiplicity.

12% did not think their therapist has ever heard of functional multiplicity.

When asked about their own goal for therapy, participants reported:

  • 78% Functional Multiplicity

  • 3% Integration

  • 11% had not yet heard the term “functional multiplicity”

When asked directly if participants ultimately had some goal or vision for final or complete integration, 78% said no.

92% said they were interested in some level of functional multiplicity.

PAGE SIX: Plural Perspectives

The final questions regarding plural perspectives became more specific in regards to identifying with or despite trauma, levels of dissociation, and functional multiplicity or ultimate integration. These questions arose from the efforts at uniting the Plural community as a resource for itself, for Plurals by Plurals, while also respecting individual experiences and understanding the perspectives of the clinical community. The options for responses to these questions came from the Plural community themselves, in exploring options of self-expression as a community culture and not just a clinical diagnosis:

The questions will be listed, with the participant percentage responses following.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I identify as:

    • 35% DID

    • 27% Plural

    • 22% Multiple

    • 5% Dissociative

    • 3% Traumatized

    • 2% It’s just baggage

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, I am:

    • 30% In the closet publicly, but have found support groups online;

    • 19% I have told friends, but not my family;

    • 12% Everyone knows, and I consider myself an advocate in some way;

    • 10% I have told my friends and family, but carefully with good boundaries;

    • 4% Everyone knows, but I am not safe enough to advocate culturally;

    • 3% Still in the closet, but at least I “get it” and am trying to deal; and

    • 2% So far in the closet that I still am not sure what’s going on yet.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to myself:

  • 64% was a huge relief because everything finally made sense;

  • 42% brutally hard, but at least I knew what was going on;

  • 32% was positive because I found others like me;

  • 18% was so hard / terrifying / confusing that I still can’t even think about it yet;

  • 14% was a good thing because I finally got help; and

  • 7% was not a big deal.

In regards to my trauma and dissociation, coming out to others was:

  • 37% mostly with others online who know what it’s like to be me;

  • 29% not as big a deal as I thought it would be;

  • 27% disappointing because I lost family or friend contacts because of it;

  • 25% okay, and my friends were totally supportive;

  • 24% easier with my friends than my family;

  • 16% terrible because of the repercussions that followed;

  • 14% dangerous, and caused me safety problems; and

  • 13% terrifying, and totally backfired.

IMG_0423.jpg

I believe my dissociation is:

  • 38%  Traumagenic-Adaptive (I am this way because of trauma, and still use dissociation adaptively to deal with life but not necessarily intentionally and not as part of my intentional cultural expression.)

  • 34%  Traumagenic (I am this way because of trauma.)

  • 13%  Traumagenic-Cultural (I am this way because of trauma, feel mostly in control of my symptoms, and have intentionally adapted to it as a cultural lifestyle.)

  • 2%  Endogenic (I was this way before I was born, but not because of trauma.)

  • 1%   Exogenic (I was this way since I was born or grew up this way, but not because of trauma - that I know of yet.)

There were NO people who marked the following:

  • 0%  Iatrogenic (I am this way because my therapist made me this way.)

  • 0%  Iatrogenic-SocioCognitive (I am this way because I internalized and/or copied symptoms seen in friends or online, intentionally or unintentionally.)

  • 0%  Iatrogenic-Cultural (I am this way because I internalized symptoms of others intentionally or unintentionally, but did intentionally learn/apply it as a lifestyle.)

Other responses included:

  • Quoigenic - mixed origin

  • Endogenic, but heavily and negatively impacted by trauma.

  • Traumagenic-Neonatal. We developed this way before we were born because our maternal unit was being abused/traumatized while we were in the womb. We were "born ready" for plurality & problems/trauma.

  • Traumagenic-SocioCognitive             

When I was young, I tended to identify with:

  • 65% Books

  • 31% Teachers

  • 31% Movies

  • 24% Video Games

  • 23% Science Fiction Anything

  • 21% Comics

  • 20% Role Playing Games

  • 17% Caregivers

  • 17% Role Models

This final question was included because “fictives” are being commonly dismissed from participating in treatment, and we wanted to explain how technology has impacted the use of introjects in plural systems. Here is a quote from the History of DID talk we gave last year at the 2019 PPWC Conference:

This is not 1980.

It’s been more than forty years since 1980.

More than half of your survivors were barely even born in 1980.

DID is not going to look the same, sound the same, or present the same now as it did in 1980 because those clients grew up in the 1940’s and 1950’s and 1960’s.   The cause may be the same, and the process may be the same, but the presentation comes in a whole new generation - four decades later.   Introjects look different, persecutors look different, and inner worlds look different.   That doesn’t make any of it less valid, and it is cruel and re-traumatizing for anyone to dismiss survivors because the culture we grew up in and had access to during childhood and adolescence was different than it was almost a hundred years ago.

Respectfully Submitted, thank you.

IMG_0427.jpg
IMG_0428.jpg
Guest: Kathy Steele
2 khs.jpg

Kathy Steele, MN, CS has been in private practice in Atlanta, Georgia since 1985, and is an Adjunct Faculty at Emory University. Kathy is a Fellow and a past President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD), and is the recipient of a number of awards for her clinical and published works, including the 2010 Lifetime Achievement Award from ISSTD. She has authored numerous publications in the field of trauma and dissociation, including three books, and frequently lectures internationally on topics related to trauma, dissociation, attachment, and therapeutic resistance and impasses.

CLICK HERE for a link to the workbook mentioned in the podcast!

DID Resources

We recently had Scarlet from the Labyrinth System as a guest on the podcast, and they were one of the very first YouTube channels educating about Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can see their channel HERE.

They mentioned the genetic test that helps you know which medications may be more helpful than others. It is called the GeneSight test, and you can see their website HERE.

We also spoke with Ashton Parker, from the Infinite System, who has started a collaborative website about Self-Help for those with Dissociative Identity Disorder. You can see the website HERE.