“Hello to all following this thread of discussion:
My sense is that psychological problems, specifically of a persistent nature, will always be very unique, and it will always be difficult to translate from a very well conducted research studies of efficacy based model to effectiveness to a specific individual client or clients. One needs to adapt, improvise, and use intuitive clinical judgement ,drawing from a vast array of information sources to address effectively any specific client problem situation to ameliorate personal and associated social distress and hopefully impact functioning outcome in an objective manner….”
” While many published scientific studies are great studies, using the gold standard of experimental designed studies, but they often leave us with possible findings of underlying neurological dysfunctions or speculative genetic markers, or something like that, and while they have the potential for future therapeutic benefits from biological intervention or more investigative research perspectives, but the studies often do not contain any ideas for any current practice implementation, I wish there could be some suggestions, even speculative ones, that could be made after each such studies reported for possible ideas to pursue for clinicians, either for the medication practicing clinicians or for the psychotherapy oriented clinicians to follow in a productive manner in their work with clients.
Speculation and imagination promote research and creativity, and it has a legitimate place in science of mental health.
Let us face, the case study models, possibly supplemented with their own phenomenological reflections, have been in the forefront of theoretical development of psychological models: Freud, Arietti, Piaget, Kohlberg, and others, all used case study models to develop their theories, and we all know their influence in modern psychiatry, psychology, and mental health.
The goal of the Internal Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis (ISPS), as I understand, is to highlight the psychological and social approaches to psychoses, which does not necessarily mean negating biological studies and interventions. Often the discussion gets framed in opposing any study report that seems to highlight biological basis of “mental illness.” While there is a legitimate need to advocate for more resource and research funding to funding psycho-social studies and interventions for “mental illness”, one can also attempt to do so by presenting more studies that document effectiveness of psycho-social interventions or innovative ideas either through controlled studies or case reports, and not necessarily focusing on negative biological study findings.
I do share the dismay that many must feel when they see the balance of research funding, federal or otherwise, is so heavily weighted in favor of biological interventions. That’s an area that ISPS and other psychologically minded organizations need to figure out how to redress the balance by representing the psycho-social perspectives in a forceful and productive manner. I sense that a lot of work is cut out for all of us in that area, and each of us need to do our own part individually or through a group process.
Knowledge sharing, open minded dialogue, and communication, and updating one’s skills are all important to this end, and I hope, ISPS will be helpful in that effort.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share!”
Extracted from a message posted on a discussion thread of ISPS Listserv!