Brief Psychotherapy - Science topic

Be sure to take a look at APA Evaluation Framework: https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/mental-health-apps/the-app-evaluation-model

It's a great idea to do so. But, please don't go to severely sick diseases. Such as acupuncturists, many of them westernized and can not handle severely sick patients. So, their opinions cannot count to represent the power and beauty of the Chinese medicine that can independently use pure Chinese medicine to treat severely sick patients. So, when you do this study, the level of the practitioner is a major factor to consider. It's not pure seniority related. But relates to how strong the desire of the practitioner wants to conquer the disease and help the patient's life turning around.

Marc, te adjunto el link con un articulo de mi autoria sobre el tema:

Exitos con tu investigación.

Here is Dr. Alasdair MacDonald's list of SF outcome studies from the website of SFBTA (Solution-focused Brief Therapy Association).

And this attachment

There are a couple of emerging schools/trends worth noting in my opinion; one is "Acceptance and Commitment Therapy" in some ways a re-development of what would have been called Buddhist therapy 20 years ago; the basic idea I draw from some jargon-heavy books is that patients observe and accept emotional reactions rather than fighting them, and then commit to making changes in behavior and relationships and cognitions. There are also various strands of work integrating neuroscience knowledge with psychotherapy, such as using new research about memory reconsolidation to inform work with clients affected by memories or conditioned responses related to traumas. Sometimes such psychotherapy is branded "brain-based" psychotherapy, Some even talk of "mindfulness" psychotherapy that may blend the above two trends by suggesting that clients understand how brain and body processes are involved in their emotional states. I find these ideas useful and effective with many clients.

The second part of your first sentence brings up a side issue: your criteria of empirical validation. CBT is supposedly the most empirically validated, but this is because it is one of the most manualizable forms of therapy and thus easy to study. I think it is time to move on from assessing the value of a therapy technique based on the way it is implemented by grad students doing a technique in isolation, and instead consider a standard of whether a technique has some neuroscience basis to it.

I'm actually in favor of outcome studies, but as a measure of therapist effectiveness more than technique effectiveness. Isolating techniques in studies and using them regarding of indivdiual differences among clients is so countertherapeutic that it nullifies the effectiveness of most techniques, since individualization is more effective and efficient, than standardization (picture a surgeon making the same cuts regardless of the patient's body structure). The problem is that now we're talking about measuring the effectiveness of the therapist's skill in selecting and applying techniques (a skill level not necessarily correlated with years of experience, since some therapists get stuck in a rut of doing therapy the way they always have).

Great question; I'll be interested to read what other trends (Thought Field Therapy, Emotion-Focused Therapy, and of course EMDR) other people find useful and scientifically validated.

Telephonic medical management is embryonic because communication of symptoms is seldom done on accurate basis over telephone. Whether physical or mental, the allopathic therapy depends on symptomatic treament by the medical practitioner. This requires personal /clinical examination , battery of investigative lab tests , diagnosis and treatment. However, in sustained medical treatment, follow-up by telephony is an option that can be exercised on discriminative basis.