Thanks so much for your comments, Bjorn. Yes, I'd agree with you that the current evidence for PDT with young people is not overwhelming, and that to present it as such would be mis-leading. But it isn't entirely under-whelming either! I think the purpose of the Abbas et al. meta-analysis that I was involved in was not to be 'pro-PDT', but rather to be 'pro-evidence', i.e. to simply try and bring together the data that is available, since I'd argue that not enough people are aware of it, and as a consequence PDT is often simply seen as an approach 'lacking in evidence'.

Golding's paper, more polemical in tone, is perhaps more a corrective than an objective evaluation, but this kind of writing may also be of value when trying to shift public perceptions?

I really welcome your emphasis on promoting "simply good psychotherapy" and trying to identify its key components, and think that research that helps identify what contributes to this is of the greatest clinical value. But we also need to ensure that in the meanwhile the 'menu' of available ways of working isn't narrowed too much, and when translated into a research strategy, this may include a need to demonstrate evidence for a range of modality approaches, including psychodynamic, systemic, humanistic etc., as well as focusing on core components and common factors. That way we can try and maintain the provision (and training) for a range of approaches, drawing on a range of techniques, whilst also learning more about the effective features of all therapy approaches.

When it comes to research strategies, I'd suggest it isn't a question of either/or, but both/and...

Best wishes,

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: list-manager@psychotherapyresearch.org [mailto:list-manager@psychotherapyresearch.org] On Behalf Of bjorn.salomonsson@comhem.se
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 3:48 PM
To: cappelen@gmail.com; caftr@psychotherapyresearch.org
Subject: CaFTR Golding's paper

Dear Nick and other members of the CaFTR list.
I read the paper by J Golding that you sent out a month ago. Unfortunately, I do not share your enthusiasm. I have no training in CBT (and little personal enthusiasm for it), a substantial training in psychoanalysis (and a long-lasting fascination), and a reasonably good training in and profound respect of formal research. It’s the researcher in me that revolts against Golding’s paper. She picks up all the pro-PDT papers and squeezes out some pro-PDT evidence that I did not find overwhelming (as in the meta by Abbass and you et al.). If a CBT therapist would read it, s/he could pick up scores of papers substantiating his/her camp. I think more and more studies are indicating that we must focus on therapist and patient factors, not on method factors.
It is another matter, and a serious problem, that the CBT “camp” has occupied media and the public agenda, with serious repercussions on funding for therapies and research. I am looking for a new way of promoting “simply good psychotherapy/therapists” to politicians and other decision makers, rather than waging war between methods. How to do it, I don’t know.
Best,
Björn Salomonsson
Dear colleague, to unsubscribe please use the following URL:

http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=5TFqMQsezlB5A9Tqs9OK1D5FJusVlynS