The reason you misrepresent the claim in the study is two-fold, first you didn't read the context and second, the study itself is flawed and probably worthless. First let's tackle the problem of ignoring context.
That's not what the study examines. It examines the statistical effects of two general therapeutical approaches - one advised against by the authors and another promoted by the authors.
The approach that the authors promote was associated with intense feeling of mistrust. And while the approach rejected by the authors may have been associated with similar attitudes it is not the same thing. Correct approach should not cause intense feeling of mistrust from the patient because then the therapy can never be successful.
Your argument that the therapy method promoted by the authors is associated with feelings of mistrust is inaccurate because the study's authors claim that the source of the distrust is not from therapy but from conditions before it. Specifically this mistrust originates from psychological therapy being used as a disciplinary method against students which are the subjects analyzed in this study. Your second second claim that the rapy should not cause mistrust is irrelevant in the context of countering the claims in the study. Here's what the authors wrote.
Those who did visit community clinics, often referred by schools, arrived having had negative experiences with counselling at school. As those leading psychiatric reform explained, during the dictatorship, cognitive-behavioral theories gained traction in schools more to maintain order than to help students [44]. Although changing, this trend has persisted.
From young people’s perspectives, teacher-initiated referrals to psychologists were, by and large, not seen as a form of care. The emphasis on "behavior" in schools was viewed as demeaning, unjust, and even discriminatory (Box 1).
It's not relevant for you to say that "therapy should not cause feelings of mistrust" as an argument against the authors' preferred method of therapy because the authors themselves don't explicitly claim that their preferred method or any other method of therapy leads to better or worst patient trust. Rather they argue that mistrust comes from a situations prior to using therapy. Two asides, first, the authors make an implicit argument supporting their preferred method of therapy (I'll come to this point), and second, there are no data beyond 5 patient anecdotes to support the claim that disciplinary psychological therapy was prevalent in Brazil during the study's time period so the authors are also guilty of poor argumentation.
Now onto more of the study's flaws.
This entire quote is unsupported by the study's data.
Though the socially attuned therapies described in this paper were not common or mainstream, they hold considerable potential. Young people who returned to the clinic, despite intense feelings of disappointment and mistrust, used the therapeutic encounter to engage in social and political debate and explore new modes of agency. Clinical interactions came to center not on treatment of disorder or symptomreduction, but on crafting self-worth, political awareness, and social influence [45]. What seems to have made a difference for young people were therapists who responded flexibly recognized the limits of their own positionality, and main-tained dialogic openness to unstructured reflection and the productivity of confrontation.
The author's intent is for the reader to infer that quote that unorthodox therapy methods lead to higher success rate or lower rates of wash out but the author doesn't state that explicitly which means they cannot actually make that argument due to not having any data to support it. This means the study should not be taken seriously. There may be anecdotal evidence from patient self-report but the actual data analysis in tables 3 and 4 are completely irrelevant to the author's intended claims. It is merely correlations between whether the patient participated in various kinds of political activism and whether or not they used therapy.
So the argument you made against the author was a misrepresentation of their claims, but their claims too were built upon quicksand. Ultimately the fault lies with the new article which produced a misleading interpretation of the study's (shoddy) results.
Finally, returning to your earlier claim that the study compares different therapy methods, while the study does compare different approaches, it doesn't actually compare their effects in terms of mental health outcomes. It correlates the self-reported political activism with usage of therapy, then it injects some interview anecdotes from a group of patients identified as "marginalized" about their perceptions and experiences with therapists. There is not even any data to prove or disprove the claim in the quote: "Young people who returned to the clinic, despite intense feelings of disappointment and mistrust, used the therapeutic encounter to engage in social and political debate and explore new modes of agency." We don't know if orthodox or unorthodox therapy made it more or less likely for patients to return.
This study appears to be yet another article published to fill a paper writing quota and was probably approved by reviewers who were asleep or agreed with the authors' unsupported conclusions. From tables 3 and 4 in the study, it doesn't present any novel or meaningful discoveries. All we learn is that politically active people are more likely to use therapy. The problem isn't that the data proves or disproves the authors' prescription of a need for "a shift from static and individualized understandings of the social to ones that are dynamic and dialectical", the problem is that the data are irrelevant to such claims.
