1/ I'm often asked about evidence for psychodynamic therapy so I'm putting it in a tweet for whoever wants it
In 2010, I published "The efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy," which put psychoanalytic/ psychodynamic therapy on the map as evidence-based therapy. It reviewed the
In 2010, I published "The efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy," which put psychoanalytic/ psychodynamic therapy on the map as evidence-based therapy. It reviewed the
2/ major meta-analyses available at the time. Here are the citations for that paper and for the major reviews and meta-analyses of psychodynamic therapy published since then.
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65, 98-109
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65, 98-109
3/ Abbass AA, Kisely SR, Town JM, Leichsenring F, Driessen E, De Maat S, Gerber A, Dekker J, Rabung S, Rusalovska S, Crowe E. Shortโterm psychodynamic psychotherapies for common mental disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD004687
4/ Abbass A, Town J, Holmes H, Luyten P, Cooper A, Russell L, et al. Short-Term Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Functional Somatic Disorders: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Psychother Psychosom. 2020;89(6):363-370. doi: 10.1159/000507738
5/ Driessen, E, P. Cuijpers, S. C. deMaat, et al. (2010). The efficacy of short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy for depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(1), 25โ36. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.08.010
6/ Keefe JR, McCarthy KS, Dinger U, Zilcha-Mano S, Barber JP. A meta-analytic review of psychodynamic therapies for anxiety disorders. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jun;34(4):309-23. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.03.004. Epub 2014 Mar 24. PMID: 24786897
7/ Leichsenring F, Luyten P, Hilsenroth MJ, Abbass A, Barber JP, Keefe JR, Leweke F, Rabung S, Steinert C. Psychodynamic therapy meets evidence-based medicine: a systematic review using updated criteria. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;2(7):648-60. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00155-8
8/ Bottom line: Psychodynamic therapy has strong empirical support. All available scientific evidence shows psychodynamic therapy is evidence-based therapy
Despite the unambiguous research evidence, some people in the mental health field who actively promulgate a myth that
Despite the unambiguous research evidence, some people in the mental health field who actively promulgate a myth that
9/ psychodynamic therapy is not "evidence-based" and lacks scientific support. They are not respecting the actual scientific evidence. Too often in this field, the talk is "evidence"โbut the walk is pure ideology
10/ Additionally, a colleague maintains a database & online bibliography of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs)evaluating psychodynamic therapies. There have been approximately 275 RCTs published to date. Here'e the link to the bibliography.
researchgate.net
researchgate.net
11/ Not once has a legitimate research study compared so-called evidence-based therapy (which is often used as a code word for brief, manualized CBT) to psychodynamic therapy on a level playing field and found that CBT was more effective
11/ On the contrary, rigorous research has shown equivalent outcomes for CBT and psychodynamic therapy. Claims that CBT is more effective are pure PR, not science.
If there was ever any legitimate basis for scientific debate about this, it's been settled
If there was ever any legitimate basis for scientific debate about this, it's been settled
12/ Here's the citation:
Steinert, C., Munder, T., Rabung, S., Hoyer, J., & Leichsenring, F. (2017). Psychodynamic therapy: As efficacious as other empirically supported treatments? A meta-analysis testing equivalence of outcomes. American Journal of Psychiatry, May 25.
Steinert, C., Munder, T., Rabung, S., Hoyer, J., & Leichsenring, F. (2017). Psychodynamic therapy: As efficacious as other empirically supported treatments? A meta-analysis testing equivalence of outcomes. American Journal of Psychiatry, May 25.
13/ Note these articles are published in top-tier scientific journals. These are not obscure sources. They are in the most prestigious journals we have.
There is simply no excuse for anyone making claims about "science" and "evidence" not to know them
There is simply no excuse for anyone making claims about "science" and "evidence" not to know them
14/ And yet, those who beat the drum loudest for "evidence" never mention them. Why???
[reader warning: here comes the snarky part]
I can think of two possibilities
1) Some of the people representing themselves as experts on therapy research do not actually know the research
[reader warning: here comes the snarky part]
I can think of two possibilities
1) Some of the people representing themselves as experts on therapy research do not actually know the research
15/ and they are not experts at all
2) Alternatively, they do know the researchโbut have an agenda to ignore or suppress findings that doesn't fit their preferred narrative
So is it lack of information, or lack of scientific integrity? Or are they so blinded by a prevailing
2) Alternatively, they do know the researchโbut have an agenda to ignore or suppress findings that doesn't fit their preferred narrative
So is it lack of information, or lack of scientific integrity? Or are they so blinded by a prevailing
16/ narrative or a partisan agenda that they've become deaf, dumb, and blind to actual scientific evidence?
Which is it?
Which is it?
Loading suggestions...