Thursday, 18 February 2016

Staying Well After Psychosis: avoiding the research evidence

I had sent an Email to the authors of Staying Well After Psychosis, Professors Gumley and Schwannauer, saying:

"I'm sceptical of research, tend to think there is a lot of bias and agenda, particularly among academics who have a point to prove.  I prefer action research undertaken by independent folk although this is hard to find.  It requires the researchers to be truth seekers, I think, rather than paid pipers.  So I will probably skim your research bits and only stop to look if something catches my eye."

Then it dawned on me that the research in their 2006 book would be out-of-date anyway.  Phew.  That's fine then.  Makes it a lot easier to read, for me.

Starting on Chapter One and this paragraph caught my eye on page 6:



I think this may still be true today, 10 years later: "CBT studies seem to have been concerned with symptomatic improvement ... psychiatric ratings of outcome ... less concerned with emotional recovery, quality of life, social functioning and staying well.". 

--------------------------------

'What's really wrong with cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis?' Neil Thomas, 27 March 2015, Frontiers in Psychology

"However, what does CBTp actually offer? CBTp mainly provides a framework for adapting existing cognitive and behavioral methods to psychosis, thereby primarily being suited to delivery by practitioners with advanced levels of cognitive-behavioral skill, typically clinical psychologists. Indeed, the competency framework described for CBTp (Roth and Pilling, 2013) indicates a high and exclusive bar for delivery. In practice, the CBTp intervention we have validated as evidence-based practice within RCTs outlines a treatment protocol requiring such high prerequisite skill that it can only be used by a small—and expensive—segment of the mental health workforce."

 Concluding paragraph:




No comments:

Post a Comment