Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:34, 23 August 2012 edit109.144.219.191 (talk) Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:32, 13 May 2024 edit undoNotgain (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users959 editsm "substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders"?: note severe 
(270 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=C|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=C|importance=High}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{skiptotalk}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 2 |counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(120d)
|archive = Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Merged-from|Computerised CBT|2011-08-15}} {{Merged-from|Computerised CBT|2011-08-15}}


== Removal of text and reference: ==
== No limits to effectiveness of CBT? ==

{{tq2|CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating'' ].<ref name="cbt_systematic_review">{{cite journal|vauthors=Chambers D, Bagnall AM, Hempel S, Forbes C|date=October 2006|title=Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review|journal=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine|volume=99|issue=10|pages=506–20|doi=10.1258/jrsm.99.10.506|pmc=1592057|pmid=17021301}}</ref>}}

Although a systematic review the sole reference date from 2006 and and developments in advice on treatments for CFS have evolved, notably from the NIH https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M15-0338 CDC https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/treatment/index.html and NICE https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/chapter/Recommendations#managing-mecfs all of which strongly imply the text "CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome" is a poor representation of current medical practice. The CFS article itself is structured on these more recent sources - NIH is from 2015, CDC is current and NICE published October 2021. Accordingly the text and reference has been edited from the article. ] (]) 14:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


:My advice is edit the context of this reference so decent pointers to the current literatures exist. There's no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good here: simple having a footnote along the lines of "but see REFERENCE1 and REFERENCE2" can be very helpful both for readers who want to dig in and spotting slanted editing of the article. &mdash; ] <small>]</small> 18:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Everything I read about CBT extols its virtues but I can find little comment here on whether it's effectiveness is limited and under what circumstances. Yet I do remember reading isolated articles to that effect in the past.
{{Reflist-talk}}


== Effectiveness of "third wave CBT" treatments ==
Yes, the article lists a number of psychological problems that CBT is successful with but this is a sales approach. A scientific approach would be to lay out those areas where success has been achieved (and to what degree) and those where it has not.


I find this sentence:
Is CBT less effective for some people than for others? Does success may vary according to such factors as education level, or age or gender?


"Despite the increasing popularity of third-wave treatment approaches, reviews of studies reveal there may be no difference in the effectiveness compared with non-third wave CBT for the treatment of depression."
The article would appear to be more balanced if such questions were granted a separate section and were at least posed, even if (in the current atmosphere of wild enthusiasm for CBT) they haven't been answered yet.


at the end of the section about third wave CBT misleading. The source (https://doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD008704.pub2) states that the conclusion is made with very low confidence, from only three RCTs with a total of 144 participants, of which two were assessed as very low quality. So this is not "reviews of studies", but one review, and it doesn't "reveal" anything really, but only suggests something with low confidence, with the main takeaway being that there needs to be more research.
As with all Misplaced Pages articles, I admire the care and work that has already gone into preparing what is here. Thanks
--] (]) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


I would suggest leaving it out. ] (]) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Brain Tips==
== Pavlov's theory was not "behaviorist" ==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Clemson_University/Brain_Tips_(Spring_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-01-17 | end_date = 2024-04-24 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
"It was during the period 1950 to 1970 that behavioral therapy became widely utilized by researchers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and South Africa, who were inspired by the behaviorist learning theory of Ivan Pavlov, John B. Watson, and Clark L. Hull".


== Distinguishing Cognitive Behavior therapy (CBT) with Cognitive and Behavior therapies (umbrella term, also CBT) ==
Pavlov's theory can by no means be labeled as behaviorist. Although Watson based his theory (Behaviorism) on Pavlov's research, Pavlov himself was not a behaviorist. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


In the literature CBT can refer to a merger of Aaron Beck's CT and Ellis' REBT, but it can also refer to a set of Cognitive and Behavioural Therapies (also CBT). This include Cognitive Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Schema Therapy, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Then there are variation like TF-CBT which also comes under the Cognitive and Behavioural Therapies umbrella term. Behavioral Therapy which emphasizes changing behaviors through techniques like exposure therapy, systematic desensitization, and skills training to address specific problems or challenges, is an approach on its own but also used elsewhere. I don't think the current article makes it clear. It is also not clear on the disambiguation page. I tend to distinguish "Cognitive Behaviour Therapy" (CBT) from "Cognitive and Behavioural therapies" (the umbrella term) or "C/BT", such as in this paper reviewing Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies (I-'''C/BT'''). This distinction is probably more important to researcher such as those in behavioural neuroscience. But it would also help in the article to distinguish between the two different uses in this article and the relevant disambiguation page. --] (]) 10:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
== Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT ==


:I flagged this a couple years ago but got no response ].Maybe this is just a thing in the behavioural neuroscience school. Keen to get your input. --] (]) 10:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
There needs to be a lot more balance, and space for divergent opinions about and critique of for article to be considered valid. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== "substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders"? ==
:While I agree with your sentiment that we should have criticism of CBT, you need to be aware that all references and edits must satisfy ] and ]. A news article is unacceptable here. As a starting point I would suggest that you read through the full-text of all the reviews used in the article to see if we are accurately reflecting the contents of the major reviews regarding the effectiveness of CBT and make sure we are not omitting any important caveats, then do a search on google scholar for other articles that look critically at the effectiveness of CBT and see if we are missing anything important (but bear in mind ] and ] - you can't just include any old criticism in the article). --] (]) 17:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


The first paragraph currently states that CBT is one of the "most effective" treatments for substance use. The reference links to a website that is not a reliable source (I added the cn tags). This needs a reference or should be adjusted / or removed. The last paragraph in the lead current says, "When compared to psychoactive medications, review studies have found CBT alone to be as effective for treating less severe forms of... substance use disorders... " There are several other disorders listed but none of the references are for substance use disorders. So, I suggest a reliable source be added or this statement be adjusted accordingly. I've added a citation needed tag. Then in the section on "Substance use disorders" it says, CBT is "one of the '''most effective''' means of treatment for substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders." However, a 2019 systematic review {{doi|10.1002/14651858.CD001088.pub4}} found "low-quality evidence of no difference between CBT and standard care" in terms of treatment outcomes. The review found "no difference between CBT and Motivational Interviewing (MI)" for "dual diagnosis" of both '''severe''' mental illness and substance misuse. The current evidence does not establish the superiority of CBT's effectiveness over standard care or other psychosocial interventions, such as MI. So this also needed to be adjusted accordingly. I added the disputed-section tags so we can discuss. --] (]) 12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
They’re should be much more critiquing of CBT particularly the INSERM meta-analysis which is allowed to go entirely unchallenged here and I don’t see how the opinions of Oliver James can be termed 'any old criticism'??? I haven’t the time to spend researching scholarly articles but at least adding the Oliver James ( a well known psychologist, journalist, author, commentator) quote at least adds some balance. Also to state without caveat that CBT simply *is* an effective for the treatment implies that it is incontrovertibly so. This does not keep with wiki standards of impartiality.

Latest revision as of 12:32, 13 May 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cognitive behavioral therapy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAutism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Skip to table of contents

The contents of the Computerised CBT page were merged into Cognitive behavioral therapy on 2011-08-15. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Removal of text and reference:

CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome.

Although a systematic review the sole reference date from 2006 and and developments in advice on treatments for CFS have evolved, notably from the NIH https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M15-0338 CDC https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/treatment/index.html and NICE https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/chapter/Recommendations#managing-mecfs all of which strongly imply the text "CBT has been shown to be moderately effective for treating chronic fatigue syndrome" is a poor representation of current medical practice. The CFS article itself is structured on these more recent sources - NIH is from 2015, CDC is current and NICE published October 2021. Accordingly the text and reference has been edited from the article. In Vitro Infidelium (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

My advice is edit the context of this reference so decent pointers to the current literatures exist. There's no need to make the perfect the enemy of the good here: simple having a footnote along the lines of "but see REFERENCE1 and REFERENCE2" can be very helpful both for readers who want to dig in and spotting slanted editing of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Chambers D, Bagnall AM, Hempel S, Forbes C (October 2006). "Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 99 (10): 506–20. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.10.506. PMC 1592057. PMID 17021301.

Effectiveness of "third wave CBT" treatments

I find this sentence:

"Despite the increasing popularity of third-wave treatment approaches, reviews of studies reveal there may be no difference in the effectiveness compared with non-third wave CBT for the treatment of depression."

at the end of the section about third wave CBT misleading. The source (https://doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD008704.pub2) states that the conclusion is made with very low confidence, from only three RCTs with a total of 144 participants, of which two were assessed as very low quality. So this is not "reviews of studies", but one review, and it doesn't "reveal" anything really, but only suggests something with low confidence, with the main takeaway being that there needs to be more research.

I would suggest leaving it out. SpookyFM (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Brain Tips

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cbrads2 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Llj2.

— Assignment last updated by Llj2 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Distinguishing Cognitive Behavior therapy (CBT) with Cognitive and Behavior therapies (umbrella term, also CBT)

In the literature CBT can refer to a merger of Aaron Beck's CT and Ellis' REBT, but it can also refer to a set of Cognitive and Behavioural Therapies (also CBT). This include Cognitive Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), Schema Therapy, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Then there are variation like TF-CBT which also comes under the Cognitive and Behavioural Therapies umbrella term. Behavioral Therapy which emphasizes changing behaviors through techniques like exposure therapy, systematic desensitization, and skills training to address specific problems or challenges, is an approach on its own but also used elsewhere. I don't think the current article makes it clear. It is also not clear on the disambiguation page. I tend to distinguish "Cognitive Behaviour Therapy" (CBT) from "Cognitive and Behavioural therapies" (the umbrella term) or "C/BT", such as in this paper reviewing Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies (I-C/BT). This distinction is probably more important to researcher such as those in behavioural neuroscience. But it would also help in the article to distinguish between the two different uses in this article and the relevant disambiguation page. --Notgain (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I flagged this a couple years ago but got no response Talk:CBT#Cognitive_behaviour_therapy_or_Cognitive_behaviour_therapies?.Maybe this is just a thing in the behavioural neuroscience school. Keen to get your input. --Notgain (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders"?

The first paragraph currently states that CBT is one of the "most effective" treatments for substance use. The reference links to a website that is not a reliable source (I added the cn tags). This needs a reference or should be adjusted / or removed. The last paragraph in the lead current says, "When compared to psychoactive medications, review studies have found CBT alone to be as effective for treating less severe forms of... substance use disorders... " There are several other disorders listed but none of the references are for substance use disorders. So, I suggest a reliable source be added or this statement be adjusted accordingly. I've added a citation needed tag. Then in the section on "Substance use disorders" it says, CBT is "one of the most effective means of treatment for substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders." However, a 2019 systematic review doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001088.pub4 found "low-quality evidence of no difference between CBT and standard care" in terms of treatment outcomes. The review found "no difference between CBT and Motivational Interviewing (MI)" for "dual diagnosis" of both severe mental illness and substance misuse. The current evidence does not establish the superiority of CBT's effectiveness over standard care or other psychosocial interventions, such as MI. So this also needed to be adjusted accordingly. I added the disputed-section tags so we can discuss. --Notgain (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: