Use of the word 'clinical' in the term 'clinical hypnotherapy' is perhaps to make hypnotherapy sound akin to the medical, for prestige, and to (unnecessarily) distinguish hypnotherapy from any other use of hypnosis.
I know what the suffering can be like. I know how one feels to have would-be helpers not 'get it', including ones well-qualified on paper. This has bestowed deep desire in me to help others, and a compassion and understanding that probably can only be gained experientially. Were not for my challenging experiences I wouldn't feel I could be an authentic helper; this is so irrespective of my University degrees and my lifelong interest in psychology and psychotherapies.
By contrast, psychotherapies are traditionally considered to work via a set of specific mechanical-like treatments/processes (akin to medicine). These would-be special 'active' factors are held to treat clients irrespective who administers a therapy. Therapists' qualities like their capacity to form good relationships, including, simply, 'how nice they are as people', are not considered or downplayed. This traditional view can't be displaced; it serves the psychotherapy industry. Yet enlightened workers across decades have known it's wrong. That is, any 'active factors' of most psychotherapies account for little of the thereapeatic outcome; and instead general factors like 'relational' ones - those concerning the therapist-client relationship - have by far the lion's share of effect. To be clear, some psychotherapies (e.g. psychosexual therapy) do have lots of specific techniques/processes that have direct thereapeutic effects. However, in all psychotherapies there'll always be contribution (positive or negative) of relationship factors.
Consoling to know, perhaps, is that I myself can face challenges helping you. Your resistance (to me / the help / change) may be considerable. And I'm anyway not an immutable certified therapist robot, nor somebody who doesn't possess personal demons and imperfections. During our time together, perhaps sparked by our time together, undesirable memories, uncomfortable truths, etc. may arise in ME (which, of course, I will handle professionally, with minimising alteration of how I am with you; this is a part of my role). Maybe this confession isn't consoling to know, and - perfectly understandably - you'd rather have a helper who at least portays infallibility.
Granted, perceived credibility from work-whereabouts may contribute a bit to useful positive expectations in clients. I anyway believe that my efficacy would be the same wherever I worked.
Psychological therapists do like to recite 'the "medical model of illness" doesn't apply to the psychological'. However, they also seem to like using medical sounding words themselves.
And it'd be rather hypocrticial of me to call myself a purveyor of something named after something/somebody else, when my very therapeautic message is for you to do things your ways to suit yourself. This said, tempering the sound of this alternative position, in formal terms I practice what's called 'pluralistic' psychotherapy. For I do, of course, incorporate pre-existing doctrines/methods into my own. If a psychotherapeutic method approach is likely to work (for a given client, for given issues) I may well weave it into the treatment plan. Of schools of thought, a legacy of my doctoral education is sympathy to the 'socio-cognitive' view of hypnosis; I adapt this for practical purposes, thus I can sound like an adherent of the contrasting ‘state’ view of hypnosis. I may use techniques from the ‘quick change' approaches - including ‘cognitive behavioural therapy’. Yet as my practice evolves – the learning ever-continues – I discover more the value of the 'existential’ approach to therapy. Before Universities so commodified counselling and psychotherapy courses, I undertook the 'client centred counselling/therapy' styled programs, which informs my client-work. I've come to recognise the utility of 'spiritual counselling'; I myself do not offer this, for want of expertise in it, but I'm open to clients’ spiritual sensitivities.
*
It follows that I'm acutely aware of the effects of one's environment on one's mental and physical health.
I get it
Conversely, individuals notionally well qualified for it with certificates/diplomas/degrees can be awful at it. The latter can apply to those who occupy the most respected of 'clinical' psychology roles, and who work in the most formal and recognised of settings; by many accounts, clients would get immeasurably more compassion, understanding and useful assistance from a New Age therapist working out back of the town's Witchcraft shop; or from a therapy dog. I suggest you consider the totality of the make-up of a possible therapist/counsellor for you.