Neurobabble Redux: Comments from Dr. Mark Hubble on the Latest Fad in the World of Therapy Spark Comment and Controversy

April 8, 2010 By scottdm 2 Comments

Last week, my long time colleague and friend, Dr. Mark Hubble blogged about the current interest of non-medically trained therapists in the so-called “neurobiology of human behavior.” In my intro to his post, I “worried” out loud about the field’s tendency to search for legitimacy by aligning with the medical model. Over the years, psychotherapy has flirted with biology, physics, religion, philosophy, chaos, and “energy meridians” as both the cause of what ails people and and the source of psychotherapy’s effectiveness.

For whatever reason, biological explanations have always had particular cachet in the world of psychotherapy. When I first entered the field, the “dexamethasone suppression test” was being touted as the first “blood test” for depression. Some twenty years on, its hard to remember the hope and excitement surrounding the DST.

Another long-time friend and colleague, psychologist Michael Valentine is fond of citing the many problems–social, physical, and otherwise–attributed to genetics (including but not limited to: anxiety, depression, addictions, promiscuity, completed suicides, thrill seeking obscene phone calls, smoking, gambling, and the amount of time one spends watching TV) for which there is either: (a) precious little or inconsistent evidence; or (b) the variance attributable to genetics is small and insignificant compared to size and scope of the problem.

In any event, I wanted to let readers know that response to Mark’s post has been unusually strong. The numerous comments can be found on the syndicated version of my blog at the International Center for Clinical Excellence. Don’t miss them!

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?”

Neurobabble: Comments from Dr. Mark Hubble on the Latest Fad in the World of Therapy

March 24, 2010 By scottdm Leave a Comment

Rarely does a day go by without hearing about another “advance” in the neurobiology of human behavior. Suddenly, it seems, the world of psychotherapy has discovered that people have brains! And now where the unconscious, childhood, emotions, behaviors, and cognitions once where…neurons, plasticity, and magnetic resonance imagining now is. Alas, we are a field forever in search of legitimacy. My long time colleague and friend, Mark Hubble, Ph.D., sent me the following review of recent developments. I think you’ll enjoy it, along with video by comedian John Cleese on the same subject.

Mark Hubble, Ph.D.

Today, while contemplating the numerous chemical imbalances that are unhinging the minds of Americans — notwithstanding the longstanding failure of the left brain to coach the right with reason, and the right to enlighten the left with intuition — I unleashed the hidden power of my higher cortical functioning to the more pressing question of how to increase the market share for practicing therapists. As research has dismantled once and for all the belief that specific treatments exist for specific disorders, the field is left, one might say, in an altered state of consciousness. If we cannot hawk empirically supported therapies or claim any specialization that makes any real difference in treatment outcome, we are truly in a pickle. All we have is ourselves, the relationships we can offer to our clients, and the quality of their participation to make it all work. This, of course, hardly represents a propitious proposition for a business already overrun with too many therapists, receiving too few dollars.

Fortunately, the more energetic and enterprising among us, undeterred by the demise of psychotherapy as we know it, are ushering the age of neuro-mythology and the new language of neuro-babble. Seemingly accepting wholesale the belief that the brain is the final frontier, some are determined to sell us the map thereto and make more than a buck while they are at it. Thus, we see terms such as “Somatic/sensorimotor Psychotherapy,” “Interpersonal Neurobiology,” “Neurogenesis and Neuroplasticity,” “Unlocking the Emotional Brain,” “NeuroTherapy,” “Neuro Reorganization,” and so on. A moment’s look into this burgeoning literature quickly reveals the existence of an inverse relationship between the number of scientific sounding assertions and actual studies proving the claims made. Naturally, this finding is beside the point, because the purpose is to offer the public sensitive, nuanced brain-based solutions for timeless problems. Traditional theories and models, are out, psychotherapies-informed-by-neuroscience, with the aura of greater credibility, are in.

Neurology and neuroscience are worthy pursuits. To suggest, however, that the data emerging from these disciplines have reached the stage of offering explanatory mechanisms for psychotherapy, including the introduction of “new” technical interventions, is beyond the pale. Metaphor and rhetoric, though persuasive, are not the same as evidence emerging from rigorous investigations establishing and validating cause and effect, independently verified, and subject to peer review.

Without resorting to obfuscation and pseudoscience, already, we have a pretty good idea of how psychotherapy works and what can be done now to make it more effective for each and every client. From one brain to another, to apply that knowledge, is a good case of using the old noggin.