‘CBT or Not CBT’, is that really the question? Re-considering the evidence base – the contribution of process research

Author:

Fairfax Hamilton

Abstract

As practitioners in both the National Health Serivce (NHS) and private practice Counselling Psychologists will be aware the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has published guidelines for the psychological treatment of the main psychiatric disorders (Depression, Anxiety, Eating Disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, OCD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Schizophrenia). NICE identifies evidencebased psychological treatments for each disorder and can, therefore, claim to identify criteria for ‘best practice’ (NICE, 2008). Based on the highest graded evidence base of Randomised Controlled Trials, (RCTs), they suggest that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) or specialist models of CBT should be the treatment of choice. As a result of this, and wider political interest in mental health, Lord Layard (2006) published proposals that attempt to implement NICE recommendations. Although this has significant implications for the NHS, it is also increasingly relevant for private practice as insurance providers, for example, begin to identify evidence-based treatment for their clients. Treatment decisions, therefore, may become less focused on clinical assessment by the clinician and more about the request of the purchaser, e.g. private health insurance. This article discusses some of the main criticisms of the NICE guidelines, and proposes that better foundations for an ‘evidence base’ in psychotherapeutic interventions are provided by process and relational studies.

Publisher

British Psychological Society

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health,Applied Psychology,Clinical Psychology

Reference59 articles.

1. Assay, T.P. & Lambert, M.J. (1999). The empirical case for common factors in therapy: Quantitative findings, In M.A. Hubble , B.C. Duncan & S.D. Miller (Eds.), The heart and soul of change: What works in therapy (pp.133–189). New York: Wiley.

2. Bergin, A. & Lambert, M. (1978). The evaluation of therapeutic outcome. In S. Bergin & A. Garfeild , Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviour change. New York: Wiley.

3. Beutler, L. E. , Consoli, A. J. & Lane, G. (2005). Systematic treatment selection and prescriptive psychotherapy: An integrative eclectic approach. In J.C. Norcross & M.R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp.121–143). New York Oxford.

4. Bohart, A.C. , Elliot, R. Greenburg, L.S. & Watson, J.C. (2002). Empathy. In J.C. Narcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapists contributions and responsiveness to patient (pp.89–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5. Talking therapies and the NHS;Bolsover;The Mental Health Review,2007

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3