Published in

Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Mental Health, 4(9), p. 429-444

DOI: 10.1080/jmh.9.4.429.444

Taylor and Francis Group, Journal of Mental Health, 4(9), p. 429-444

DOI: 10.1080/713680258

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Complexity and collaboration in routine practice of CBT: What doesn't work with whom and how might it work better?

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

There is compelling evidence from specialist research centres for the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) with a variety of psychiatric disorders but effectiveness in routine clinical practice has yet to be established. The complex tasks confronting those generalist practitioners who see a broad range of referrals are analysed in terms of the breadth of treatable disorders, the variable nature of patient characteristics and the pressures of work. This analysis suggests that effectiveness and efficiency in routine practice of CBT will be compromised unless therapists work in small teams and adopt some of the rigours and objectivity of the research context. In particular, it is suggested that clinical practice should include routine assessment of complexity and severity of problems at a screening interview and quality of collaboration after a trial period of treatment. Therapy for those cases with high complexity and poor collaboration should incorporate peer-aided clinical supervision and periodic review.