SCOTT D Miller - For the latest and greatest information on Feedback Informed Treatment

  • About
    • About Scott
    • Publications
  • Training and Consultation
  • Workshop Calendar
  • FIT Measures Licensing
  • FIT Software Tools
  • Online Store
  • Top Performance Blog
  • Contact Scott
info@scottdmiller.com 773.404.5130

Problems in Evidence-Based Land: Questioning the Wisdom of "Preferred Treatments"

March 29, 2010 By scottdm Leave a Comment

This last week, Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor for the U.K. Independent published an article entitled, “The big question: Does cognitive therapy work? And should the NHS (National Health Service) provide more of it?” Usually such questions are limited to professional journals and trade magazines. Instead, it ran in the “Life and Style” section of one of Britain’s largest daily newspapers. Why?

In 2007, the government earmarked £173,000,000 (approximately 260,000,000 U.S. dollars) to train up an army of new therapists. Briefly, the money was allocated following an earlier report by Professor Richard Layard of the London School of Economics which found that a staggering 38% of illness and disability claims were accounted for by “mental disorders.” The sticking point—and part of the reason for the article by Laurance—is that training was largely limited to a single treatment approach: cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).  And research released this week indicates that the efficacy of the method has been seriously overestimated due to “publication bias.”
Researchers Cuijpers, Smith, Bohlmeijer, Hollon, and Andersson (2010) examined the “effect sizes” of 117 trials and found that the tendency of journals to accept trials that showed positive results and reject those with null or negative findings reduced the reported effectiveness of CBT by as much as 33 percent!
Combine such findings with evidence from multiple meta-analyses showing no difference in outcome between treatment approaches intended to be therapeutic and one has to wonder why CBT continues to enjoy a privileged position among policy makers and regulatory bodies.  Despite the evidence, the governmental body in the UK that is responsible for reviewing research and making policy recommendations—National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)–continues to advocate for CBT.  It’s not only unscientific, its bad policy. Alas, when it comes to treatment methods, CBT enjoys what British psychologist Richard Wiseman calls, the “get out of a null effect free” card.
What would work? If the issue is truly guaranteeing effective treatment, the answer is measurement and feedback.  The single largest contributor to outcome is who provides the treatment and not what treatment approach is employed.  More than a dozen randomized clinical trials—the design of choice of NICE and SAMSHA—indicate that outcomes and retention rates are improved while costs are decreased—in many cases dramatically so.
I respectfully ask, “What is the hold up?”

Filed Under: Practice Based Evidence Tagged With: CBT, cdoi, cognitive-behavioral therapy, conferences, evidence based practice, icce, Jeremy Laurance, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), randomized clinical trial, Richard Layard, Richard Wiseman

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

SEARCH

Subscribe for updates from my blog.

  

Upcoming Training

FIT Supervision Intensive 2018
FIT Implementation Intensive 2018

FIT Implementation Intensive 2019
FIT Training of Trainers 2019
FIT Deliberate Practice Aug 2019 - ICCE

NREPP Certified

HTML tutorial

LinkedIn

Topics of Interest:

  • Behavioral Health (107)
  • behavioral health (4)
  • Brain-based Research (1)
  • CDOI (14)
  • Conferences and Training (66)
  • deliberate practice (21)
  • Dodo Verdict (8)
  • Drug and Alcohol (3)
  • evidence-based practice (56)
  • excellence (57)
  • Feedback (32)
  • Feedback Informed Treatment – FIT (156)
  • FIT (18)
  • FIT Software Tools (10)
  • ICCE (25)
  • Implementation (5)
  • medication adherence (3)
  • obesity (1)
  • PCOMS (10)
  • Practice Based Evidence (36)
  • PTSD (3)
  • Suicide (1)
  • Termination (1)
  • Therapeutic Relationship (3)
  • Top Performance (39)

Recent Posts

  • Time for a New Paradigm? Psychotherapy Outcomes Stagnant for 40 years
  • Beating the Dodo Verdict: Can Psychotherapy Ever Achieve Better Results?
  • “Clients Won’t Like It” and Other Concerns about Feedback Informed Treatment
  • Aren’t You the Anti-Evidence-Based Practice Guy? My Socks. And Other Crazy Questions.
  • What Works in Psychotherapy? Valuing “What Works” rather than Working with What We Value

Recent Comments

  • Rikke Addis on Time for a New Paradigm? Psychotherapy Outcomes Stagnant for 40 years
  • alan beach on Time for a New Paradigm? Psychotherapy Outcomes Stagnant for 40 years
  • Adriano Bugliani on Time for a New Paradigm? Psychotherapy Outcomes Stagnant for 40 years
  • Nick Drury on Time for a New Paradigm? Psychotherapy Outcomes Stagnant for 40 years
  • John Fitzgerald on Symptom Reduction or Well-being: What Outcome should Matter Most in Psychotherapy

Tags

addiction Alliance behavioral health brief therapy Carl Rogers CBT cdoi common factors conferences continuing education denmark evidence based medicine evidence based practice Evolution of Psychotherapy excellence feedback feedback informed treatment healthcare holland icce international center for cliniclal excellence medicine mental health meta-analysis Norway NREPP ors outcome measurement outcome rating scale post traumatic stress practice-based evidence psychology psychometrics psychotherapy psychotherapy networker public behavioral health randomized clinical trial SAMHSA session rating scale srs supershrinks sweden Therapist Effects therapy Training

FIT Software tools

FIT Software tools