Published in

Bentham Open, Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 1(11), p. 12-15, 2015

DOI: 10.2174/1745017901511010012

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Flexible ACT & Resource-group ACT: Different Working Procedures Which Can Supplement and Strengthen Each Other. A Response

Journal article published in 2015 by Remmers van Veldhuizen, Philippe Delespaul ORCID, Hans Kroon, Niels Mulder
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

This article is a response to Nordén and Norlander’s ‘Absence of Positive Results for Flexible Assertive Community Treatment. What is the next approach?’[1], in which they assert that ‘at present [there is] no evidence for Flexible ACT and… that RACT might be able to provide new impulses and new vitality to the treatment mode of ACT’. We question their analyses and conclusions. We clarify Flexible ACT, referring to the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment Manual (van Veldhuizen, 2013) [2] to rectify misconceptions. We discuss Nordén and Norlander’s interpretation of research on Flexible ACT. The fact that too little research has been done and that there are insufficient positive results cannot serve as a reason to propagate RACT. However, the Resource Group method does provide inspiration for working with clients to involve their networks more effectively in Flexible ACT.