Intensive Short-Term Dynamic Psychotherapy associated with healthcare reductions in patients with functional seizures 2023 Malda-Castillo et al

Abstract

Intensive Short-Term Psychodynamic Therapy (ISTDP) has demonstrated promising evidence for the treatment of Functional Neurological Disorders (FND) including functional seizures.

This paper aimed to further examine the therapeutic effects of a 3-session course of this treatment focusing on its potential to maintain reduced healthcare utility within a group of patients with complex difficulties, across an extended time period, post-therapy.

The original study followed a mixed methods case series design and recruited 18 patients from secondary adult mental health care and specialist neurology services. Seventeen participants completed the intervention and attendance rates were very high (95%). In this follow-up study, which was solely focused on the utilization of healthcare resources, results showed decreases when comparing 12 months prior and 12 months post three sessions of ISTDP.

The results provide further support for the use of ISTDP in this group of participants with complex clinical presentations, specifically, its capacity to reduce healthcare usage over 12 months post-therapy. Further evidence from controlled and randomized studies with larger sample sizes is warranted.

Paywall, https://www.epilepsybehavior.com/article/S1525-5050(23)00065-3/fulltext

 

Just putting up a sign at the door that says "Don't come back" would be a lot cheaper if that's the only goal. Probably just as effective, it's essentially the same message in a different form anyway.

Or just close the clinic. Zero direct healthcare costs when you do that. If that's the only goal.

Paywalled, for some reason, but when you don't even put any numbers in the abstract, it's because they're really bad and you're only selling a story.

 

Perhaps ISTDP reduces health costs because patients realise that doctors have nothing to offer them so they stop using the health system.

 

Agreed

Also getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of trust I have in abstracts to not mislead where most who might read it and not be 'in the industry' would have to pay e.g. $31 - was it 'all healthcare resources' in which case how did they be sure of that, or just the mental health and neurology?

Because of course in the 12months prior said people probably had appointments to diagnose them and then tell them they should do this therapy, so whether something 'reduces' is entirely comparative surely to potentially criteria set to participate.

I do find it strange that noone mentioned whether the seizures improved.

And that '95% attendance' was crowed about, but we don't have response rate or details of whether their facts on 'usage' their one measure are complete

 

Seems to be the whole point. And I do mean all of it, there is no secondary point to this, it's only this one. They are confusing the process with the outcome.

The process of treating sick people is so they don't come back. Because why would they when the problem has been resolved? And we know that "patient didn't come back" is explicitly perceived as "recovered, no longer needs healthcare". So patients not coming back is likely explicitly recorded as having recovered. They get all the credit for doing something, while doing nothing. Perfect scam.

And judging by how effective it has been with us and long haulers, it's clear that they are judging this a rousing success. Most of us have abandoned the idea of even seeing a doctor. They see this as success. They see us being erased from existence as success.

The horrors found in medical history are especially awful, but they really haven't stopped. If it wasn't for higher standards of living, it would be just as awful today. Medicine is just as awful at this as it was a century ago.

 

I just checked to see which country: UK, NHS, Liverpool (lead author)/Merseyside (x2)/Exeter/Lancaster/Canada seems to be where the authors are based. Interesting as it is $ if you want to see beyond the abstract.

Main objective: to reduce visits to: their depts (?) or 'all healthcare' (as they infer?)

3 of these (Merseyside, lead author from Liverpool) are from a personality disorder and psychotherapy hub

these are people with functional seizures, complex issues etc as they've said - I don't understand how even if they meant 'usage' it would be a measure, given surely there must/should be a responsibility to keep an eye on how such patients are actually doing (or is the trick that doesn't 'count' as an appointment?)

 

This guide to recognizing the emotions purportedly leading to these persistent symptoms and unblocking treatment defeating behaviors is honestly one of the most insane things I’ve ever seen. There is no difference between these insipid and platitudinous missives and something you would hear from a medium, faith healer, and strip mall psychic. Effectively, this just gets patients physicians would rather not deal with out of the healthcare system. It’s telegraphed and nobody cares.

 

Impossible to falsify such beliefs: if it works it is because we are right, if it doesn’t work it is because we are right.

In my early ‘try everything and anything’ phase I saw a homeopath, and he would interpret any subjective change in my symptoms as indication of his treatments working, be it improvement or deterioration. This is not science, as the hypotheses behind it are unfalsifiable.

 

It's a bit transparent isn't it according to this article: using 'whatever under the label of psychotherapy' (noone has confirmed it is helpful rather than harmful - just because it has been given the name therapy ) effectively as a trapdoor/back door to remove certain people from healthcare.

Sadly it makes you ask directly if it is written for its audience ie as a sales pitch

NHS being about everyone getting access to free healthcare at the point of use seems to miss a caveat it didn't know that it needed when that phrase/cliche was invented.

Disturbing that anyone thinks saying something like that is OK, or I guess at least they are admitting that is how they think and act and it is disturbing that society or regs/oversight are so bad they do write and believe this and aren't under treatment themselves.

It is saying 'unless you give me what I want ergo a good rating, then it is your fault' and there is a power imbalance. Replace their 'therapy' with anything else and any other person in such a vulnerable situation and imagine what you would do. That situation should not be existing.

It also shows a huge lack of their own confidence in their own abilities or 'therapy' that they'd feel the need to do that.

I can't help but note 3 of these individuals work in personality disorder hubs and that these days some seem to be selling as 'up for debate' [as an undertone in some of the literature that comes through from certain schools on here] whether it is the antisocial person and their behaviour towards others that is incorrect, or those impacted by them/who don't think like that who are 'the problem'. ie if only people just didn't get ill from me being horrible to them there would be no issue. The 'normal reaction to inappropriate behaviour' getting simmered down by the person doing the inappropriate behaviour which provokes said only possible stimulus to using that to infer the other person is somehow strange as the behaviour 'unusual' - yet only in the sense most don't weather such situations.

I have huge worries reading statements like this which to me sound like reality-distortion. For incredibly vulnerable people who have almost certainly been through a lot at least with their health. Just because you have the power doesn't mean you get to decide reality in your favour. And that is even more important an underline if you are supposed to be working in an area such as mental health than outside it.

Psych can theoretically in a poorly oversighted world be very much be used for harm, and there are historical well-known lessons of where this has happened which should be being always heeded. Heck read the dystopian literature classics, Margaret Attwood's Testaments being one recent example. Not describing how something would be of any therapeutic help at all vs what someone has whilst focusing on blame and insinuation about the other person in the relationship before they have even done it is... well yes I will say it again disturbing, and not a positive sign of intention.


What seems to also be worrying is the definition of being allowed to use the word 'therapy' as if it infers 'doing good'. Without feeling any need to prove that in terms that matters to those you are doing it to. People who might have little choice about it.

 

The bastards. They just don't want to get better.

This is far worse than alternative medicine when it happens in healthcare because it has power over people. It has more power than the law, even basic human rights. You have the "right to competent medical care", unless someone looks at you and believes otherwise. This almost ends up worse than charity because it's almost as arbitrary as charity, but the exclusions are formalized and legally enforced. The worst of both systems.

In the end all this BPS stuff has done is give unlimited power to pseudoscience over people who explicitly object. It made all medicine worse, less effective, and essentially did away with basic ethics and professionalism.