Virtual Journal Club

[Therapist4Chnge]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I thought it might be interesting to have a place to talk about interesting journal articles. I think we have a pretty good cross-section of interests on here, so I'm hoping that with spur on topics that others wouldn't normal encounter in their day-to-day readings.

The APA is now offering free access to certain articles, which may be a good place to start so people aren't limited by not having access to certain articles.

So...anyone read an interesting article recently that they would like to talk about?

 

[Rivi]

I really like this idea, as I am interested in what you all are researching or reviewing in your practices. For me, I have an interest in SPMI, but am a bit rusty on my psychotherapy skills, so I have been doing a lit review of sorts of psychotherapy with Schizophrenia, and have been surprised at all of the promising results, although there doesn't seem to be as much of a difference between different types of therapies (CBT vs. psychodynamic, etc.) as originally thought:

Newton‐Howes, G., & Wood, R. (2013). Cognitive behavioural therapy and the psychopathology of schizophrenia: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Psychology And Psychotherapy: Theory, Research And Practice, 86(2), 127-138.

Purpose: To examine whether cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) reduces psychopathology in patients with schizophrenia more effectively than the use of noncognitive psychotherapies. Method: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was performed. All Randomized Controlled Trials meeting the inclusion criteria were analysed using RevMan software. This design was used to maximize power and study efficacy. Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched using free-text keywords to identify potential papers. Nine were included in the final meta-analysis. Change in psychopathology at the end of therapy was the end point investigated. A random effects model was used to assess the standard mean difference between the CBT and supportive control groups. Results: Meta-analysis of CBT versus supportive therapy did not find significant differences between the therapy groups at the end of treatment in respect of psychopathology. There was no evidence of publication bias. Post hoc power analysis using the Z test ruled out type one error. Conclusions: Theoretically based CBT therapies, although proving effective, may not out perform more accessible and simpler forms of therapy for patients with schizophrenia in reducing psychopathology. Consideration of supportive therapy should be made for patients with psychotic mental disorder.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies
Scott O. Lilienfeld, Lorie A. Ritschel, Steven Jay Lynn, Robin L. Cautin, Robert D. Latzman.

Psychotherapists are taught that when a client expresses resistance repeatedly, they must understand and address its underlying sources. Yet proponents of evidence-based practice (EBP) have routinely ignored the root causes of many clinical psychologists' reservations concerning the use of scientific evidence to inform clinical practice. As a consequence, much of the resistance to EBP persists, potentially widening the already large scientist–practitioner gap. Following a review of survey data on psychologists' attitudes toward EBP, we examine six sources underpinning resistance toward EBP in clinical psychology and allied domains: (a) naïve realism, which can lead clinicians to conclude erroneously that client change is due to an intervention itself rather than to a host of competing explanations; (b) deep-seated misconceptions regarding human nature (e.g., mistaken beliefs regarding the causal primacy of early experiences) that can hinder the adoption of evidence-based treatments; (c) statistical misunderstandings regarding the application of group probabilities to individuals; (d) erroneous apportioning of the burden of proof on skeptics rather than proponents of untested therapies; (e) widespread mischaracterizations of what EBP entails; and (f) pragmatic, educational, and attitudinal obstacles, such as the discomfort of many practitioners with evaluating the increasingly technical psychotherapy outcome literature. We advance educational proposals for articulating the importance of EBP to the forthcoming generation of clinical practitioners and researchers, and constructive remedies for addressing clinical psychologists' objections to EBP.

I saw this posted on a listserv...and it seemed like a good article to discuss.