The Future of Evidence-Based Psychotherapy


Researchers from the Brown University School of Medicine, writing in Clinical Psychology Review November special issue on the future of evidence-based psychotherapy, report that psychotherapy continues to move toward prescriptive treatment guidelines, and that traditional psychotherapy is on the decline while medication use is rising. The issue also includes a piece by MiA writer Brett Deacon.

Article →

Gaudiano, B., Miller, I.; The evidence-based practice of psychotherapy: Facing the challenges that lie ahead. Clinical Psychology Review. 33(7)813-824.

Of further interest:
Psychotherapy lags as evidence goes unheeded (Science Codex)

Previous articleChanging Minds About Voices: Action Over Words
Next articleGuiding Voices,
Trauma-Induced Voices
Kermit Cole
Kermit Cole, MFT, founding editor of Mad in America, works in Santa Fe, New Mexico as a couples and family therapist. Inspired by Open Dialogue, he works as part of a team and consults with couples and families that have members identified as patients. His work in residential treatment — largely with severely traumatized and/or "psychotic" clients — led to an appreciation of the power and beauty of systemic philosophy and practice, as the alternative to the prevailing focus on individual pathology. A former film-maker, he has undergraduate and master's degrees in psychology from Harvard University, as well as an MFT degree from the Council for Relationships in Philadelphia. He is a doctoral candidate with the Taos Institute and the Free University of Brussels. You can reach him at [email protected].


    • Oh yeah. This is highly relevant, as far as I’m concerned.

      After I emailed NASA the U.S. Coast Guard showed up. He took me to lunch and showed me a document. He told me they were attempting to manipulate Mars to make it a “green” planet (habitable).

      And *IF* they’re actually able to do that then human brains are certainly NOT off-limits. Who knows what exactly they’ve planned, and are carrying out on VERY easy targets.

      Want the name of the U.S. Secret Service / U.S. Marshall that also came to visit me? He also works for an RFID manufacturer.

      I think I’m correct about remote neural access, via some seriously advanced technology. And I think psych drugs are the facilitators that make “RFID” technology work.

      Radio Frequency Identification
      Radio-frequency identification is the wireless non-contact use of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields to transfer data, for the purposes of automatically identifying and tracking tags attached to objects. Wikipedia

      Report comment

  1. Evidence-based?

    *What* evidence?
    When it comes to the medical model in psychiatry, there is no evidence!

    “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. However, it takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” ​- Albert Einstein

    Report comment

  2. Hi Duane. There is plenty of evidence for the effectiveness of some psychotherapies for certain mental health problems. In my article in this special issue of Clinical Psychology Review, I call out the problems inherent in studying psychotherapy within a biomedical framework; i.e., conducting “horse-race” clinical trials of various psychotherapy packages for DSM-defined mental disorders. But despite these limitations, it’s clear that some psychotherapies are quite evidence-based. My area of research focuses on exposure therapy for anxiety – facing one’s fears to overcome them – and this approach enjoys a great deal of scientific support. It’s important not to conflate the biomedical paradigm of DSM-focused psychotherapy research with the biomedical model of mental disorder, and biological treatment, that has come to dominate American psychiatry.



    Report comment

  3. When does the “evidence” regarding the ineffectiveness of pharmacology, the effectiveness of open dialog, the role of nutrition and other evidence become included in this “evidence” based approach?
    The whole term is misleading and it’s used everywhere from public education to social services to mainstream mental health and it’s largely unquestioned as has been the “medical model” and the DSM. It’s setting a troubling scenario because it means very little when only some of the “evidence” is included. Just another approach to make an apple look like an orange depending on who is selling the fruit.

    Report comment