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 03:54, 18 September 2012 editCartoonDiablo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,375 edits →French survey third round← 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 
(184 intermediate revisions by 53 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: ==
== Page is incredibly biased in favour of CBT ==

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-->

: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)

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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:I agree. This is a pretty poor article overall. ] ] 22:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

::Ditto. I'm unimpressed with the unqualified use of "effective". The world deserves an FA on this topic. --] (]) 08:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

== POV-Warning ==

The table about the effectivness of psychotherapy is POV. My arguments are . The tabel must be removed. I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:That's a conclusion, not an argument. Please share your argument. ] (]) 21:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
::My arguments listed, as I wrote, . It's easy. Turn your cursor on the blue fonts, and klick your left mouse-button (apple useres the middel mouse button). --]<sup>]</sup> 21:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I saw that. I'm no more convinced than CartoonDiablo was. As he pointed out, this is a large tertiary source, hence highly reliable. ] (]) 22:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
::::A large tertiary source, like houndreds of others. You also think: I read one table in one source and now I'm a expert of psychotherapy reserch? It's not as simple as you think. Do you also think: Without knowing the hole field of psychotherapy research, you can make usefull alteretions? If you really do, it's not possible to conviece you. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I looked through the previous discussion, and I agree with Noleander's comment that we should just have a text summary rather than the large table. I'm not entirely convinced that this study does have thousands of citations. If you perform that google scholar search that CartoonDiablo gives, most of the results are nothing to do with the study, and the ones that do mention the study call it a 'poorly designed and questionable study', so I'm concerned that we are giving a questionable study from 2003 with few citations too much weight. --] (]) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
::::::ACK. And it's not only the study. You can't build a chapter about a hole research aerea with houndreds and thousends of studies, meta studies, reviews and summaries by know only one pure publication. Thats nonserious and got nothing to do with an enzyklopedic work. --]<sup>]</sup> 19:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::::To Sciencewatcher, the only source that called it a "poorly designed and questionable study" was the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, which is a rather dubious source considering that it was cited . The point is it's the largest study in the article, there are no other tertiary sources so far as I can tell and I don't see why it the chart shouldn't be used.
:::::::Unless someone can find a good reason for why 100+ meta studies would not suffice to create a chart (as apparently Widescreen and sciencewatcher are implying) there is no reason to exclude it. ] (]) 06:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::The bigger the better? CartoonDiablo were do you know they use 100 meta studies? They doesn't list the studies they use as basis for they results! If you want to be pooterish, it's not even a studie. It's a rewiew. But there are much more studies, overlooks and reviews. With different results. I show you. --]<sup>]</sup> 08:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::First of all yes it does list its sources and results and unless you (Widescreen) personally are a reliable source that can dismiss 111 meta studies done by a government panel then there is no argument. ] (]) 20:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Your answer shows that you are not able to etimate the quality of scientific releases. Notably the fact it's a govermantal survey, don't create doubt at you. Thats why I always call it a survey, means not an scientific release but a helth policy survey. Thats perhaps the reason your study recieves so much critic? But that doesn't mean we can't use this superficial survey as source. But only in relation to other studies which have a better quality. But your study may not be the only study cited in the article, by ignore all the others. Thats POV. And POV is prohibited here. --]<sup>]</sup> 10:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'd like to see other editors opinion on this. I don't think it's useful Widescreen and CartoonDiablo just arguing over this. --] (]) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::Other input would be helpful but I honestly don't even see an argument. Widescreen is simply asserting that it's not reliable which isn't an argument unless he himself happened to be an RS. ] (]) 02:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::1. What means RS? 2. I never say the study isn't totaly unreliable. It recieved a lot of criticism from other scientiffic authors Thats a good advice. My main argument is still: You can't write about psychotherapy research by citing only ONE table taken form ONE single, study, because there are a lot more overviews like that. The study CD trys to push in the article is minor relevant. Trying to describe the hole field of psychotherapy research even in only one treatment is a gigant task. You are wrong when you say, you can do good enzyclopedic work, when you use only one source, by ignoring all others. Do you really think thats quality work in wikipedia? --]<sup>]</sup> 05:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}I chimed in earlier in support of CartoonDiablo. I just don't see what Widescreen's reasoning is, other than an arbitrary rejection of a rather good meta-study. ] (]) 02:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:Yeah, I think the case is obvious here, the issue also remains in the ] article. For now I'll put into the research section since the study was not meant as a critique of any kind and, if anything, redeems psychoanalysis' claim to help with personality disorders. ] (]) 05:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::Regarding citations: if you do a search for the French title of the article on google scholar it gives 10 pages of results (). I think that is the most accurate reflection of the citations for the study, so it looks like it does have a good number of citations after all. The only question is whether it's taking up too much space in the article. One question I would ask is: does it agree with the other major reviews? If so then I don't think there is a problem with it. --] (]) 15:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Sry Sciencewatcher. Google-Scholar includes a citatiation counter. Under the Studie, you can see the link: "Cited by 4". That means Scholar found 4 other scientific releases which cited the study you was searching for. But you found the study not once but triple! Unter the fist hit at scholar you see two futher hits. In front of it is the word . It ment the same study but another release. All in all we have 8 citatiations. For example a review releases 1994 has above . These are importend studies. Not this french survey. 10 or 8 citatiations are ridiculous in this embatted field. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::::The one thing I'd suggest is seeing if we can make the chart smaller on screen, without cutting anything. ] (]) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::The chart is POV. We don't reduce the POV by making it smaller. --]<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}The content is neutral, but the size is a bit much. ] (]) 16:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Oh, really?! What makes you belive this? Your expertise of psychotherapy research? --]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

:To Widescreen, that's not how the argument works. The study's validity is based on the fact that it's 111 meta-studies collected by a reliable source and abides by WP:MEDRS. Your assertion that it's POV or not a RS is based on your opinion.
:To StillStanding, I'll see what I can do with the formatting. ] (]) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

::Widescreen, I'm aware of the '4 citations' that google scholar shows - it was me who first pointed that out after all. However google scholar isn't always correct in counting citations. I think the problem here is that the article is shown as an english transation, while all the citations are in French. --] (]) 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:::You are right! But ther's a different between 8 or 10 citatiations and the above 1000 CartoonDiabolo asserted. It's also a different to other releases which recieved really above 1000 citatiations. My point is still the same. You can't describe the field of psychotherapy research by only one govermental survey. That's nonserious and non-enzyclopedical. That's why the survey have to be erased. --]<sup>]</sup> 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
::::No, it's not '10' citations, it's 10 ''pages'' of results (144 in total). Probably not all of those are proper citations, but even 100 is pretty respectable. --] (]) 21:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::Hm? Strictly thats not correct. The Scholar searches the full text at the name of the release. The citatiation been counted by the software. But I checked the mentioned citatiations counted by scholar, and I found one source doesn't even really cites the survey! Thats remarkeble. I also think it's a problem on the french translation. But you can't count only the resuls presented by scholar. Beginning from result page 1 on you can't proove if it's really a citatiation or a dead hit. At ] I found . Thats makes the survey generally mentionable in my eyes. Of course in relation to others. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

== A offer for real ==


{{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>}}
After the table was erased, I thought maybe I can help you to phrase a chapter about the evaluation of efficacy of cbt. I can help you to find sources or classify them. I got a lot of knowledge about this special research area. If you want? --]<sup>]</sup> 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


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)
== Text passage ==


: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)
<u>Evaluation of effectiveness</u>
{{Reflist-talk}}


== Effectiveness of "third wave CBT" treatments ==
According to a 2004 French government study conducted by ], <u>Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to ] and family or couples therapy.


I find this sentence:
The study used <u>]</u> of over a hundred <u>]</u> to <u>find some level of effectiveness</u> that was either "proven" or "presumed" to exist. Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating <u>], ], ], ], ], ]s, ], ], ] and ].</u>


"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."
I just underlined all wrong statments. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
:Widescreen, please stop edit-warring. ] (]) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
::Also I'm working on an image as agreed per the discussion. If you remove either the image or text here or on the psychoanalysis article it will be considered edit-warring. ] (]) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Nearly every statement you add last, was wrong. So I reverted it by quality management. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
::::You reverted against consensus and got reverted. ] (]) 04:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, I didn't. see: --]<sup>]</sup> 04:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}With all due respect, I've been to ] so I know a few things about it. First, it's not binding. Second, it doesn't replace consensus. Third, it's often completely worthless. I suggest you try ], with the options being:
#No chart.
#Chart.
#Small chart.
#Prose.
Try that. But until then, leave that part of the article alone. ] (]) 04:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:The table were POV but the prose is POV as POV can. The consensus dint't say: You can type anything you want. The alterations have to be confirm with our rules. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
::The consensus was that an image be made in its place and this is blatantly edit waring as well as a violation of 3RR. ] (]) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
:::Widescreen, stop edit warring. The prose seems to be a good summary of the study to me. If you have objections you need to explain exactly what your objections are. --] (]) 13:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, but I hadn't much time.
What's wrong with the passage?
#The heading. It's called "''Evaluation of effectiveness''". In fact it's about 1 single study or survey. The "Evaluation of effectiveness" would contain about 10 to 20 important studies. If anybody have the leisure for an detailed description it would contain about 50 stuies. A good heading would be. "INSERM efficancy survey" or "French govermental survey".
#The sentence: "''Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy.''" Thats not true. If you want to describe a short approach it's rather: "The survey found that CBT is more effective as psa and ft in specific disorders and specific treatment conditions." (by ignoring about 70 studies in 2004)
#"''The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies''" This sentence doesn't have a source. The french survey got such a bad quality, they doesn't list the studies they choose for there review or even cited them. I know some meta-analysis contains only 8 or 10 single rtc's. What makes the author sure, that the survey evaluated over a houndred secondary studies? Further, the study also use rct's if no meta-analysis was found. Or, I wouldn't to rule out that possibilitie, I didn't found a list or citatiation of the used studies. But meanwhile I've read the study (compulsorily) in parts. Thats the reason why the statement "''of over a hundred secondary studies''" is completeley imaginary. (there are a much more quality lecks)
#"''secondary studies''" This term is wrong if you ask me. I know, en:wp calls meta-analyses AND peer-reviewed articles ] (without a source!). But in de:wp you can read somthing different. In de:wp you can read secondary sources are overviews which based on so called primary sources. I saw how the anglophone Misplaced Pages works, just in this article here, an I trust the german more...
#"''to find some level of effectiveness''" A bit fussy, but these are no "levels" of effectiveness but a statement if the treatment is proven (effective) or presumed (effectiv). Levels of efficacy are more differentiated. But, just as I said, a bit fussy if you see the other serious shortcomings of the text.
#"''Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency.''" The main fault on this sentence is that he doesn't term the exact conditions of the treatment which was evaluated. E.g. "Schizophrenia (acute phase) with medical drugs" or "Depression, hospitalised on antidepressants" and so on.


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.
But the important thing is, you have to expain the reader, that this single study does't explain the hole field of psychotherapy research. And why, in gods name, we choose this study for our articles.


I would suggest leaving it out. ] (]) 13:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I know CBT got much more assured efficacys. But guys like CD doesn't know, becuse they only know ONE singel Study. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Brain Tips==
::This was literally all settled in the . The agreement was to turn it into prose and to have an image of the former chart. ] (]) 20:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
{{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 }}
:::Maybe its settled in the . But it's not settled in the source. Are you afraid answering my points? --]<sup>]</sup> 10:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::Your "points" have been answered ad nauseum in the dispute resolution, this talk page and your talk page, (and mind you, by the other participants in the dispute resolution) none of which are true. If your argument is based on things that are blatantly false then there is no argument. It's why your the only person whose putting up POV tags when there is no POV dispute. ] (]) 15:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
:::::No, they weren't answered. Because you mainly talked nonsense. --]<sup>]</sup> 23:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
::::::Ok this is getting ridiculous, you've just been banned for edit waring and now you're basically edit waring without discussing again. ] (]) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}Widescreen, these were answered. Please stop edit-warring. ] (]) 01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:For reference here is the . ] (]) 01:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
==Widescreen edit waring (again)==
See latest . ] (]) 23:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
:He reverted again. ] (]) 00:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
::What a luck you both banterers didn't edit waring --]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
:::I won't exceed 2RR, even in such blatant cases of drive-by tagging as this. ] (]) 06:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


== Distinguishing Cognitive Behavior therapy (CBT) with Cognitive and Behavior therapies (umbrella term, also CBT) ==
== French survey third round ==


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)
The Textpassage is still deficient. After CartoonDiablo add some more studies the heading is no longer fallacious. But the rest of my criticism is still current:


: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)
#The sentence: "''Cognitive behavioral therapy was the most effective therapy as compared to psychoanalysis and family or couples therapy.''" Thats not true. If you want to describe a short approach it's rather: "The survey found that CBT is more effective as psa and ft in specific disorders and specific treatment conditions." (by ignoring about 70 studies in 2004)
#"''The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies''" This sentence doesn't have a source. The french survey got such a bad quality, they doesn't list the studies they choose for there review or even cited them. I know some meta-analysis contains only 8 or 10 single rtc's. What makes the author sure, that the survey evaluated over a houndred secondary studies? Further, the study also use rct's if no meta-analysis was found. Or, I wouldn't to rule out that possibilitie, I didn't found a list or citatiation of the used studies. But meanwhile I've read the study (compulsorily) in parts. Thats the reason why the statement "''of over a hundred secondary studies''" is completeley imaginary. (there are a much more quality lecks)
#"''secondary studies''" This term is wrong if you ask me. I know, en:wp calls meta-analyses AND peer-reviewed articles ] (without a source!). But in de:wp you can read somthing different. In de:wp you can read secondary sources are overviews which based on so called primary sources. I saw how the anglophone Misplaced Pages works, just in this article here, an I trust the german more...
#"''to find some level of effectiveness''" A bit fussy, but these are no "levels" of effectiveness but a statement if the treatment is proven (effective) or presumed (effectiv). Levels of efficacy are more differentiated. But, just as I said, a bit fussy if you see the other serious shortcomings of the text.
#"''Of the treatments CBT was found to be presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, bulimia, anorexia, personality disorders and alcohol dependency.''" The main fault on this sentence is that he doesn't term the exact conditions of the treatment which was evaluated. E.g. "Schizophrenia (acute phase) with medical drugs" or "Depression, hospitalised on antidepressants" and so on.


== "substance abuse and co-occurring mental health disorders"? ==
There was been add a picture what replaces the table just been removed. You can't take Picture of the table seriously. This Picture of the table can't be found at the source so he was homemade by the user. The question is: Why was this special Table selected? I know much better studies wich also have tables and beeing much more ] by other scientists than this special survey was. I claim that this table was selected and refused by a picture shows the same as the table, to overstate the efficacy of CBT. The results of psychotherapy research as not as simple the table/picture suggest. If you wan't a pretty good chapter about the efficacy you have to give futher explanations. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:15, 17 September 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)
:In support of Widescreen here (but not the edit warring) the evidence for CBT has been disputed to my knowledge in the UK and publishing that table gives a misleading impression. Its cherry picking evidence to support a proposition.----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
::Care to explain how 100+ secondary reviews is cherry picking data? ] (]) 03:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

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: