Solution-Focused Therapy: A Practitioner Guide and Training Pathway

Solution-focused therapy is a collaborative, strengths-based approach that helps clients describe a preferred future, recognise resources they are already using, and identify manageable steps towards change.

Also known as solution-focused brief therapy, or SFBT, the approach shifts much of the therapeutic conversation from explaining how a problem developed to exploring what the client wants instead – and what may already be helping.

For practitioners, effective SFBT involves more than asking the miracle question or using a numerical scale. It requires precise listening, careful goal negotiation, cultural responsiveness and sound clinical judgment about when a solution-focused conversation is appropriate.

What is solution-focused therapy?

Solution-focused brief therapy is a goal-directed therapeutic approach developed through the work of Steve de Shazer, Insoo Kim Berg, and their colleagues at the Brief Family Therapy Center.

Rather than assuming that a detailed analysis of a problem is always necessary before change can occur, SFBT invites the practitioner and client to construct a clear description of the client’s preferred future. The conversation then explores exceptions, resources, relationships, and previous actions that may help move the client towards that future.

The client is not treated as a passive recipient of expert solutions. The practitioner adopts a collaborative stance and works from the assumption that clients possess knowledge, abilities, and experiences that may contribute to meaningful change.

SFBT is commonly associated with brief practice, but “brief” should not be understood as rushed or superficial. The duration of therapy should remain responsive to the client’s needs, the service context, clinical complexity, and progress towards agreed goals.

The central shift in a solution-focused conversation

A problem-focused conversation may ask:

• What caused this difficulty?
• How long has it been happening?
• Why does it continue?
• What is wrong?

A solution-focused conversation is more likely to ask:

• What would you like to be different?
• What would tell you that therapy had been useful?
• When is the difficulty less intense or less influential?
• What are you already doing that helps?
• What would represent a small but meaningful next step?

SFBT does not require practitioners to ignore pain, history, diagnosis, or social context. It changes where much of the therapeutic attention is directed: towards descriptions of useful change and the resources that could support it.

How solution-focused therapy works in practice

Developing a preferred future

The practitioner helps the client move from a broad complaint – such as “I want to stop feeling overwhelmed” – towards a detailed description of what improved life would look like.

A useful preferred future is ordinarily:

• Meaningful to the client.
• Described in observable or experiential terms.
• Within the client’s sphere of influence.
• Connected to everyday relationships and contexts.
• Specific enough that early signs of progress can be noticed.

The well-known miracle question is one way of supporting this process. Its value does not lie in a fixed script. Its purpose is to help the client imagine how life, behaviour, relationships, or daily experience might be different if the presenting concern were no longer dominant.

Identifying exceptions and existing resources

Exception questions explore periods when the problem was absent, less intense, or managed differently.

An exception may be substantial, but it can also be brief or easily overlooked. The practitioner may explore:

• What was different at that time?
• What did the client do?
• Who else was involved?
• What made the exception possible?
• What does the exception reveal about the client’s skills or circumstances?
• Could any part of it be repeated?

This process is not intended to deny the seriousness of the presenting issue. It helps make useful variation visible. Even persistent difficulties rarely affect every situation in exactly the same way.

Using scaling questions carefully

Scaling questions invite the client to place an experience, level of progress, confidence, or readiness on a numerical scale.

The number itself is usually less important than the discussion that follows. For example:

• What makes the rating a four rather than a two?
• What are you doing that has helped you reach four?
• What would a movement from four to five look like?
• Who might notice that change?
• What would help you maintain your current position?

Scaling should not become a mechanical assessment ritual. Some clients may find numerical scales artificial, overly individualistic, or culturally incongruent. The method should be adapted – or omitted – according to the client’s preferences and context.

Recognising coping and survival

Where clients cannot identify clear exceptions, coping questions may help illuminate how they have endured difficult circumstances.

Questions might explore:

• How have you kept going?
• What has prevented the situation from becoming even worse?
• Who or what has supported you?
• What does your response say about what matters to you?
• Which of your actions required the most effort?

Coping questions require sensitivity. They should recognise hardship without romanticising adversity or implying that the client should simply become more resilient.

Turning conversation into small, observable change

SFBT frequently emphasises modest, achievable movement rather than dramatic transformation.

A small step may be valuable when it:

• Is chosen or endorsed by the client.
• Is realistic within the client’s current circumstances.
• Builds on an existing strength or exception.
• Produces information that can guide the next conversation.
• Makes progress easier to recognise.

The practitioner then reviews what changed, what contributed to the change, and whether the client wishes to continue, modify, or replace the strategy.

What skills does competent SFBT practice require?

Knowledge of SFBT questions is useful, but technique alone is insufficient.

Practitioner competency	What it involves
Collaborative stance	Treating the client as knowledgeable about their own life rather than imposing a professionally preferred solution
Precise listening	Detecting language about hopes, values, exceptions, resources and signs of change
Goal negotiation	Helping the client translate broad concerns into meaningful and workable outcomes
Question design	Asking questions that arise naturally from the client’s language instead of delivering a memorised sequence
Contextual formulation	Recognising relationships, culture, power, material circumstances, and systems that influence available choices
Risk and safety assessment	Completing necessary assessment and safeguarding processes even when the broader conversation is solution-focused
Outcome monitoring	Reviewing whether the approach is helping and changing direction where progress, fit, or safety requires it
Integration	Using solution-focused processes appropriately alongside other therapeutic or multidisciplinary interventions

A skilled solution-focused practitioner remains curious about what is useful to the client. Persisting with an SFBT technique that the client experiences as invalidating, culturally unsafe, or unhelpful would be inconsistent with the approach’s collaborative foundations.

When may solution-focused therapy be useful?

SFBT may be particularly relevant when:

• The client can identify a change they would like to pursue.
• A service operates within a brief or time-limited model.
• The client feels defined by problems, deficits, or previous clinical labels.
• Therapy needs to strengthen hope, agency, or awareness of existing resources.
• Small behavioural or relational changes could create useful momentum.
• A practitioner wants to establish goals or unblock stalled work within a broader therapeutic approach.
• The clinical setting requires focused, collaborative intervention, such as primary care, schools, or community services.

Research has examined SFBT across community, health, family, school, and substance-use settings. Recent reviews generally support beneficial psychosocial outcomes, although effects differ across studies, populations, and research designs.

When a solution focus may not be sufficient

SFBT should not be used to avoid essential clinical work.

Depending on the client and setting, practitioners may still need to undertake:

• Suicide, self-harm, or violence risk assessment.
• Crisis stabilisation.
• Safeguarding and mandatory reporting.
• Diagnostic or functional assessment.
• Trauma-informed preparation and processing.
• Medical, psychiatric, or multidisciplinary consultation.
• Longer-term relational or developmental work.
• Practical advocacy relating to housing, discrimination, finances, or safety.

A future focus can become invalidating when it is used to redirect a client away from pain before that pain has been heard. Similarly, an emphasis on personal solutions can obscure social, cultural, and structural constraints if the practitioner treats every problem as individually controllable.

What does the evidence say about SFBT?

The evidence base for SFBT has grown substantially.

Recent meta-analyses and an umbrella review have reported positive findings across a range of psychosocial outcomes and service contexts. A meta-analysis of randomised community-service studies included 28 studies and 340 effect sizes. A broader 2024 meta-analysis examined psychosocial outcomes and potential moderating factors, while a subsequent umbrella review synthesised systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The overall picture is encouraging, but it should not be reduced to the claim that SFBT works equally well for every client or condition. Studies differ in quality, population, delivery setting, comparison conditions, and how closely the intervention reflects established SFBT practice.

One 2024 randomised clinical trial in an integrated primary-care setting found improvements in depression, anxiety and wellbeing after three brief SFBT sessions compared with treatment as usual. However, this was a relatively small, single-site study, and the intervention did not significantly change all measured physical-health outcomes.

For practitioners, the evidence supports considering SFBT as a legitimate therapeutic option – not treating it as a universal substitute for assessment, formulation, or other evidence-informed care.

How does SFBT compare with related approaches?

The boundaries between therapeutic modalities are not absolute, and practitioners frequently integrate compatible processes. The table below describes broad differences in emphasis rather than rigid rules.

Approach	Typical emphasis	A central therapeutic question
Solution-focused brief therapy	Preferred futures, exceptions, resources and small signs of progress	“What would you like to be different, and what is already helping?”
Cognitive behavioural therapy	Relationships between thoughts, emotions, behaviour and maintaining processes	“What patterns may be maintaining this difficulty, and how can they be tested or changed?”
Narrative therapy	Meaning, identity, discourse, power, and alternative stories	“How has the problem influenced your life, and what preferred stories have been obscured?”
Motivational interviewing	Ambivalence, autonomy and strengthening personally meaningful motivation	“What are your own reasons for considering change?”

Practitioners interested in the relationship between these models may also read:

• Rethinking Narrative Therapy
• Using Motivational Interviewing to Address Client Resistance
• The What and Why of the Therapeutic Alliance

Cultural responsiveness in solution-focused practice

SFBT’s respect for client knowledge and its avoidance of an all-knowing therapist stance can align well with culturally responsive practice. That does not mean its standard techniques are culturally neutral.

Direct questioning, individualised compliments, numerical scaling, and linear goal-setting may not suit every client, family, or community. Practitioners should examine:

• Whether the preferred future is individual, relational, or collective.
• Who should participate in defining useful change.
• Whether direct questions support or inhibit communication.
• How strengths can be acknowledged without unwanted attention or shame.
• Whether the concept of measurable progress fits the client’s worldview.
• How colonisation, racism, displacement, disability, gender, poverty, or other structural forces shape available options.

For an Australian discussion of these issues, see Therapies for First Nations: Part 1.

Cultural humility requires more than modifying the wording of the miracle question. It requires practitioners to remain accountable for how their assumptions about autonomy, progress, goals, and expertise affect the therapeutic relationship.

Recommended solution-focused therapy training pathway

1. Build a sound conceptual foundation

Solution-focused Therapy: The Basics

Format: Text
Duration: 3 hours

Examine the assumptions, core concepts, treatment stages, techniques, contributions, and limitations of solution-focused therapy.

Explore this course >

2. Observe individual work with an adolescent

Solution-Focused Narrative Therapy with an Adolescent

Format: Video
Duration: 1 hour

Observe an integrated narrative and solution-focused session involving an adolescent, including work with preferred identity, exceptions, strengths, and the miracle question.

Explore this course >

3. Extend the approach into a family session

Solution-Focused Narrative Therapy with a Mother and Daughter

Format: Video
Duration: 1 hour

Explore strength-based, narrative, and solution-focused processes within a mother–daughter session involving tension, family expectations, and competing perspectives.

Explore this course >

4. Integrate solution-focused principles into clinical interviewing

Interviewing for Happiness: How to Weave Positive Psychology Magic into the Initial Clinical Interview

Format: Video
Duration: 1 hour

Learn how positive psychology and solution-focused principles may be incorporated into an initial interview without dismissing distress or resorting to superficial positivity.

Explore this course >

5. Consider application within a complex safety context

Intimate Partner Violence Solution-Focused Trauma Care

Format: Video
Duration: 1 hour

Consider solution-focused trauma-care processes in work involving intimate partner violence, including safety, the client-helper relationship, and different forms of therapeutic questioning.

This specialist course should follow – not replace – foundational training in risk, safety planning, trauma-informed care, and intimate partner violence.

Explore this course >

Explore the complete MHA course catalogue >

Why learn with Mental Health Academy?

Mental Health Academy gives mental and allied health practitioners flexible access to a broad online professional development library.

As an MHA member, you can:

• Access 650+ courses across hundreds of mental health topics
• Learn from more than 250 global practitioners, researchers, educators, and authors
• Choose from text-based and video-based learning
• Study online and on-demand
• Complete assessments and download certificates
• Maintain your CPD records through the MHA learning platform

Practitioners remain responsible for confirming whether a particular activity meets the requirements of their registration board, professional association, or employer.

Explore MHA membership >

Frequently asked questions

Is solution-focused therapy the same as solution-focused brief therapy?

The terms are commonly used interchangeably. Solution-focused brief therapy, or SFBT, emphasises the approach’s origins in brief therapy, while “solution-focused therapy” is often used as a shorter general term.

What are the main solution-focused therapy techniques?

Common processes include preferred-future questions, the miracle question, exception questions, scaling questions, coping questions, recognition of strengths and exploration of small next steps. Competent practice depends on how these processes are used, not merely whether a practitioner asks particular questions.

Is solution-focused therapy evidence-based?

SFBT has a growing evidence base, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomised studies. Findings are generally positive, but outcomes vary across populations, settings, and study designs. It should not be presented as universally effective or appropriate.

Can solution-focused therapy be integrated with other approaches?

Yes. Practitioners may use solution-focused processes for goal development, identifying resources, or reviewing progress within CBT, narrative, motivational, systemic, or other therapeutic work. Integration should remain theoretically coherent and appropriate to the client.

Is solution-focused therapy suitable for trauma work?

Solution-focused processes may support hope, safety, agency, and recognition of survival skills, but they are not a substitute for trauma-informed assessment, stabilisation, or evidence-informed trauma treatment. A premature future focus may feel invalidating if the client’s experience has not first been understood.

Will an MHA course qualify me as a solution-focused therapist?

No single short CPD course automatically establishes practitioner competence or a protected professional qualification. Competence develops through appropriate education, supervised practice, reflection, feedback, and experience within the practitioner’s scope of practice.

Does an MHA solution-focused therapy course automatically satisfy my CPD requirements?

Counsellors, psychotherapists, psychologists, social workers, community workers, and other mental health professionals can accrue CPD hours/OPD points by completing MHA courses. As requirements differ between professions, associations, and employers, and may change over time, each practitioner should verify the activity against their own current obligations.

References

• Cooper, Z. W., Mowbray, O., Ali, M. K., & Johnson, L. C. M. (2024). Addressing depression and comorbid health conditions through solution-focused brief therapy in an integrated care setting: A randomized clinical trial. BMC Primary Care, 25, Article 313. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02561-8
• de Shazer, S., Berg, I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally, E., Molnar, A., Gingerich, W., & Weiner-Davis, M. (1986). Brief therapy: Focused solution development. Family Process, 25(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1986.00207.x
• Franklin, C., Ding, X., Kim, J. S., Zhang, A., Hai, A. H., Jones, K., Nachbaur, M., & O’Connor, A. (2024). Solution-focused brief therapy in community-based services: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 34(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315231162611
• Franklin, C., Zhang, A., Froerer, A., & Johnson, S. (2017). Solution focused brief therapy: A systematic review and meta-summary of process research. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 43(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12193
• Vermeulen-Oskam, E., Franklin, C., van ’t Hof, L. P. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van Vugt, E. S., Assink, M., Veltman, E. J., Froerer, A. S., Staaks, J. P. C., & Zhang, A. (2024). The current evidence of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis of psychosocial outcomes and moderating factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 114, 102512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102512
• Żak, A. M., & Pękala, K. (2025). Effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychotherapy Research, 35(7), 1043–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2024.2406540