Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Sly Saint, Nov 7, 2020.
hmm, says the person who has shares in said delivery system which avoids the need for RCTs, or produced on the back of mis-represented RCT results.....
see Mahana Therapeutics.
The in-person therapies have no evidence of efficacy and are often found to be impertinent to the needs. The online versions carry this flaw with them, it's nothing to do with their delivery system. It's not a style problem, it's a substance problem, a complete lack thereof to be precise.
Billions have been wasted on this and the very best that's ever been achieved is small trivial and superficial "benefits" that always fail to have objective benefits. This is not an engagement failure, it's a technical and ethical failure. None of them are "durable", they literally all fail on follow-up. All of them. The complete lack of integrity needed to say otherwise is very much part of the reason for this disastrous failure.
Is psychology the only field where failure is rewarded with additional funds so you can fail all over again? And again. Ad nauseum.
problem is not only with digital therapies:
Mental Health Sufferers Vote With Their Feet and Government Does Nothing At All
That's it. Hardly coincidental that clinical psychology is heavily politicized and biased by ideology.
There's a thread for the first paper mentioned, with the astonishing statistics about patient dropout prior to and during the first two IAPT sessions, here:
Predicting patient engagement in IAPT services: a statistical analysis of electronic health records, 2019, Davis et al
And a thread for the second paper mentioned here:
The 2018 UK NHS Digital annual report on the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme: a brief commentary, 2019, Moller et al
This reported that most people referred to IAPT services were either not starting or dropping out before completing two sessions, and that there was no impact on employment rates.
Separate names with a comma.