What Works for Whom? A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research

What Works for Whom? A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research

What Works for Whom? A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research

What Works for Whom? A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research

Synopsis

Meeting the growing demand for resources on evidence-based practice, this acclaimed work has now been fully revised and expanded with the latest treatment data. Like its predecessor, the second edition provides a systematic, comprehensive, and balanced evaluation of the current status of all major psychotherapeutic approaches. Detailed evidence is presented for the efficacy of widely used interventions for frequently encountered mental disorders and for special populations, including children and adolescents and older adults. The concepts that underpin psychotherapy research are explicated, and methodological challenges in translating research into practice addressed. Also examined is the impact of therapist and client characteristics on outcome, regardless of the specific interventions used.

Excerpt

The first edition of this book, published in 1996, was based on a report commissioned in 1994 by the U.K. Department of Health as part of its review of the planning and provision of psychological therapy services. At that time, there was a growing expectation that psychotherapy—along with any other form of publicly funded treatment—should be demonstrably effective and cost-effective. Since then, this expectation has become normative, and there are few countries where the demand for “evidence-based practice” does not apply.

This book attempts to identify and review evidence that can help answer the challenging question “What works for whom?”—in other words, which psychotherapeutic interventions are of demonstrated benefit to which patient groups? This question—originally posed by clinical researchers—is now seen as being of direct relevance to both service users and service providers, clinicians and researchers.

With the growth in the number of interested parties, there is a critical need to understand the nature of the evidence on which important decisions can rely. The questions posed by researchers (and the techniques used to answer them) rarely produce data that are directly applicable to funders or to individual consumers of health care (Parry, 1992). Just as we cautioned in 1996, readers need to understand that there is no direct relationship between research and clinical practice: The one needs translation into the other. While we believe that research evidence can be used to improve the structure and planning of psychotherapy services, we also recognize that, without careful interpretation, this evidence can be misconstrued, to the detriment of all parties (Roth & Parry, 1997).

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.