Article: Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy the Gold Standard for Psychotherapy? 2017

[Sly Saint]

https://www.sci-hub.ee/10.1001/jama.2017.13737#

eta:
Citation/ pubmed link to the article:

Leichsenring F, Steinert C. Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy the Gold Standard for Psychotherapy?: The Need for Plurality in Treatment and Research. JAMA. 2017 Oct 10;318(14):1323-1324. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13737. PMID: 28975264.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28975264/

 

[cassava7]

This thread on Twitter quantifies some of the issues raised by the article, notably how the efficacy of psychotherapy interventions can be inflated in RCTs.

 

[rvallee]

And yet this guy is 100% in on CBT-GET for ME and FND and all that jazz, based on "evidence" that features all of those prominently. None of this means anything if this thinking is turned off arbitrarily, just as rules and laws are just empty words when they go unenforced.

The main problem in this field is Dunning-Kruger and frankly there needs to be a concept for how supremely ironic it is. He should know the evidence is bad, but chooses to flip it upside down for things he believes in. Because it's all about belief and perception, their own, which is just another creamy layer of Dunning-Kruger on top of that carrot cake made entirely of bits of Dunning-Kruger.

 

[MSEsperanza]

And yet this guy is 100% in on CBT-GET for ME and FND and all that jazz,

I missed that and his name is new to me.

Does anyone have a link to provide some info about his support for CBT-GET?

 

[Sly Saint]

The thing that all these commenters seem to be reluctant to admit though is that all this 'previously badly done research' is still used time and again to support
a)use of the therapy, claiming it to be 'evidence based' and
b)funding for further badly done research using exactly the same flawed methodology
c)no attempt to correct the existing literature that often spins results as positive when they aren't.

Saying that 'things are improving' isn't good enough.