I think the questions surrounding contact amount and timing and situation are complex. T's are always juggling the effects of their actions consciously in the moment and unconsciously longer term. And they can be in conflict.

More sessions per week can be helpful, or it can be overwhelming. The same with the length of an individual session. The time in between sessions I think is a delicate balance between processing and recovery: maintaining enough psychological tension to keep the work going, but not so much as to overwhelm with anxiety. And those needs change over time with the work.

Contact outside of session--phone, e-mail, etc--can be useful, or undermining. A lot depends on the underlying personality issue that brings the client to therapy. Boundaries can feel annoying, but still be psychologically helpful.

For me, the consistency of generally once a week meetings at the same time and place, was soothing. There were short intervals when twice a week was necessary to achieve the same containment and balance.

Because I was loathe to reach out, my T encouraged me to trust in and use that option by calling him if I was feeling anxious or overwhelmed. On the rare occassion when I called, it usually led to an extra session.

But if my personality make-up were to express my insecurity through a constant need for contact, I suspect he would have imposed strict limitations. It's not to punish or from a lack of caring, but rather to create and sustain a secure frame for the therapy work.

It also depends upon the developmental deficit caused by the trauma. Different stages of development need different responses. We were pretty sure my trauma began between the end of the rapproachement period and the early Oedipal period. Trauma at a younger age creates different attachment challenges.

I always think of it in horse training analogies: it's the "Whoa, easy" school of thought. When a horse is spooked by something, some react by "Whoa, easy" in an attempt to soothe the horse's fears. It sounds reasonable, but often it has the reverse result: it tells the horse, "Hey! There really IS something to be afraid of here, and my person is scared!" So it feeds the horse's anxiety, and can even create a habit of spookiness where there wasn't one.

The alternative is to steady the horse gently by quietly confirming the command: it diverts the horse's attention from the spooky thing to you, and gives the horse a task to complete. It builds confidence, usually for horse and rider.

I don't think the issue of trust is about the T being there or not being there outside of session: I think it's more about the abilty to maintain the attachment, and feel contained by the frame.