Post by Maddie1 on Oct 1, 2015 16:17:59 GMT
Hi,
So I’m kicking off by having a go at doing the following:
'Post to the forum how you view the research base of our profession.'
There are gaps in my knowledge about the research base of our profession and I need to rectify this because the research base of hypno-psychotherapy is clearly crucial to the treatment we provide to our clients. If there is no evidence for the efficacy of our work then why should anyone pay for this treatment? I therefore consider the fact that there should be a sound research base and ongoing research into hypno-psychotherapy to be absolutely essential to the profession. Robust research will raise the standing of our profession and most importantly, allow clinicians to assist clients in resolving the issues they enter therapy for.
The main analysis of the research base of our profession that I have considered previously has been in relation to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). This is a therapeutic modality that arguably owes much of its success to its research base. This evidence base is cited as another reason for its selection by the NHS. Clearly, in order for the government to commit large sums of money to a therapeutic modality, there needs to be evidence for its effectiveness (House and Loewenthal, 2012). Although the validity of the research into CBT has been questioned by some, its existence is undoubtedly incredibly useful to CBT practitioners in terms of their credibility and ability to be gainfully employed. It isn't much of a leap to suggest therefore that a similar body of research would be invaluable for Hypno-psychotherapists.
This is an exciting time for research into hypno-psychotherapy because the technology surrounding neuroscience now allows the impact of hypno-psychotherapy to be measured through the objective means of brain scans in addition to the more subjective methods of assessment previously available to researchers. Case studies and the personal views of therapists and clients were the original basis of our profession (I am thinking of the works of Freud, Jung, Adler etc) and whilst these theories, based on clinical work are very useful, I believe the newer approaches made possible by neuroscience could provide the strong scientific backing to our profession which would allow our work to become more mainstream in the way CBT has.
My understanding is that members of our profession are wary of placing too much weight on the importance of research because of the limitations of research. Mick Cooper (2012) highlights one such limitation:
‘For a start, by its very nature, research talks in generalisations rather than specifics. So, for instance, the research might show that depressed clients, on average, will exhibit fewer psychiatric symptoms after participating in short-term psychodynamic therapy (Leichsenring, 2001), but this does not mean that one client in front of a therapist will definitely improve if he or she uses that therapeutic approach. The probability is that he or she will, but on the other hand he or she may not, and it is also possible that he or she will feel a lot worse if the therapist works in that way. In that way, to base therapeutic practice wholly on empirical research findings - to the exclusion of other factors, such as an expressed preference of the client - would be profoundly unethical. Counselling and psychotherapy research findings can only ever tell us about what is most likely to happen - they cannot give us certainties.’ (page 4)
In addition to this, research findings can easily be skewed. Taking CBT as an example again. CBT may not be as indisputably effective as its supporters deem it to be; a 2010 review published in the British Journal of Psychiatry assessed one hundred and seventy five studies on CBT and depression and concluded that ‘[...] the effects had been exaggerated. Two-thirds of people (67 per cent) improved with therapy, which sounds impressive. However, 40 per cent improved without therapy. So the treatment delivered an extra 27 percentage-point “effect”’ (Laurence, 2010). I would argue that this is another reason why therapists from other schools of thought, such as hypno-psychotherapy, need to be conducting our own research so that there can be discussion, debate and challenging of research findings. All of which can ultimately provide the information that members of the public, government bodies, the NHS etc can use to make the best decisions about which therapeutic modality to utilise.
In conclusion, I view the research base of our profession as being in its infancy. Some excellent research into the efficacy of hypno-psychotherapy exists but I don’t feel it is well enough publicised by members of our profession or pulled together in a unified way. I think it is incumbent upon us as practitioners to publicise the research that exists and to find ways to build upon it whilst of course being aware that each of our clients is an individual who may not fit neatly into research categories and deserves to be offered a unique approach.
I’m really looking forward to hearing what everyone else thinks and if anyone can point me towards any cutting edge research into hypno-psychotherapy/hypnotherapy/psychotherapy and/or share with me any other resources you’ve found helpful on the subject I would be very grateful! Thanks, Maddie
These are my references:
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
House, R and Loewenthal, D, (2012) ‘Against and For CBT: Towards a Constructive Dialogue? ‘PCCS Books, Ross-on-Wye
Kaye, J (2012) published in House, R and Loewenthal, D, (Editors) (2012) ‘Against and For CBT: Towards a Constructive Dialogue?’ PCCS Books, Ross-on-Wye
Laurence, J (2010) The Big Question: Does cognitive therapy work - and should the NHS provide more of it for depression? The Independent, London (originally published on 23/03/10. Accessed at www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-does-cognitive-therapy-work-ndash-and-should-the-nhs-provide-more-of-it-for-depression-1925439.html on 15/08/13)
So I’m kicking off by having a go at doing the following:
'Post to the forum how you view the research base of our profession.'
There are gaps in my knowledge about the research base of our profession and I need to rectify this because the research base of hypno-psychotherapy is clearly crucial to the treatment we provide to our clients. If there is no evidence for the efficacy of our work then why should anyone pay for this treatment? I therefore consider the fact that there should be a sound research base and ongoing research into hypno-psychotherapy to be absolutely essential to the profession. Robust research will raise the standing of our profession and most importantly, allow clinicians to assist clients in resolving the issues they enter therapy for.
The main analysis of the research base of our profession that I have considered previously has been in relation to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). This is a therapeutic modality that arguably owes much of its success to its research base. This evidence base is cited as another reason for its selection by the NHS. Clearly, in order for the government to commit large sums of money to a therapeutic modality, there needs to be evidence for its effectiveness (House and Loewenthal, 2012). Although the validity of the research into CBT has been questioned by some, its existence is undoubtedly incredibly useful to CBT practitioners in terms of their credibility and ability to be gainfully employed. It isn't much of a leap to suggest therefore that a similar body of research would be invaluable for Hypno-psychotherapists.
This is an exciting time for research into hypno-psychotherapy because the technology surrounding neuroscience now allows the impact of hypno-psychotherapy to be measured through the objective means of brain scans in addition to the more subjective methods of assessment previously available to researchers. Case studies and the personal views of therapists and clients were the original basis of our profession (I am thinking of the works of Freud, Jung, Adler etc) and whilst these theories, based on clinical work are very useful, I believe the newer approaches made possible by neuroscience could provide the strong scientific backing to our profession which would allow our work to become more mainstream in the way CBT has.
My understanding is that members of our profession are wary of placing too much weight on the importance of research because of the limitations of research. Mick Cooper (2012) highlights one such limitation:
‘For a start, by its very nature, research talks in generalisations rather than specifics. So, for instance, the research might show that depressed clients, on average, will exhibit fewer psychiatric symptoms after participating in short-term psychodynamic therapy (Leichsenring, 2001), but this does not mean that one client in front of a therapist will definitely improve if he or she uses that therapeutic approach. The probability is that he or she will, but on the other hand he or she may not, and it is also possible that he or she will feel a lot worse if the therapist works in that way. In that way, to base therapeutic practice wholly on empirical research findings - to the exclusion of other factors, such as an expressed preference of the client - would be profoundly unethical. Counselling and psychotherapy research findings can only ever tell us about what is most likely to happen - they cannot give us certainties.’ (page 4)
In addition to this, research findings can easily be skewed. Taking CBT as an example again. CBT may not be as indisputably effective as its supporters deem it to be; a 2010 review published in the British Journal of Psychiatry assessed one hundred and seventy five studies on CBT and depression and concluded that ‘[...] the effects had been exaggerated. Two-thirds of people (67 per cent) improved with therapy, which sounds impressive. However, 40 per cent improved without therapy. So the treatment delivered an extra 27 percentage-point “effect”’ (Laurence, 2010). I would argue that this is another reason why therapists from other schools of thought, such as hypno-psychotherapy, need to be conducting our own research so that there can be discussion, debate and challenging of research findings. All of which can ultimately provide the information that members of the public, government bodies, the NHS etc can use to make the best decisions about which therapeutic modality to utilise.
In conclusion, I view the research base of our profession as being in its infancy. Some excellent research into the efficacy of hypno-psychotherapy exists but I don’t feel it is well enough publicised by members of our profession or pulled together in a unified way. I think it is incumbent upon us as practitioners to publicise the research that exists and to find ways to build upon it whilst of course being aware that each of our clients is an individual who may not fit neatly into research categories and deserves to be offered a unique approach.
I’m really looking forward to hearing what everyone else thinks and if anyone can point me towards any cutting edge research into hypno-psychotherapy/hypnotherapy/psychotherapy and/or share with me any other resources you’ve found helpful on the subject I would be very grateful! Thanks, Maddie
These are my references:
Cooper, M (2012) ‘Essential Research Findings in Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Facts are Friendly’ Sage, London
House, R and Loewenthal, D, (2012) ‘Against and For CBT: Towards a Constructive Dialogue? ‘PCCS Books, Ross-on-Wye
Kaye, J (2012) published in House, R and Loewenthal, D, (Editors) (2012) ‘Against and For CBT: Towards a Constructive Dialogue?’ PCCS Books, Ross-on-Wye
Laurence, J (2010) The Big Question: Does cognitive therapy work - and should the NHS provide more of it for depression? The Independent, London (originally published on 23/03/10. Accessed at www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-big-question-does-cognitive-therapy-work-ndash-and-should-the-nhs-provide-more-of-it-for-depression-1925439.html on 15/08/13)
Seemingly I didn't scroll down far enough when I copied and pasted and omitted the references in my last post...here they are !