The British Journal of Psychiatry (2008) 192: 401-403. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.053876
© 2008 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJP
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scott, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Scott, J.

EDITORIALS

Cognitive–behavioural therapy for severe mental disorders: back to the future?{dagger}

Jan Scott, MD FRCPsych

School of Neurology, Neurobiology & Psychiatry, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK. Email: jan.scott{at}newcastle.ac.uk

Declaration of interest

Jan Scott was Principal Investigator on the Medical Research Council effectiveness study of cognitive–behavioural therapy for bipolar disorders and on the Trial Steering Committee for the Welcome study undertaken by Garety et al (in this issue). She has received honoraria for Continuing Medical Education talks on psychological therapies for severe mental disorders from AstraZeneca, BMS-Otsuka, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen-Cilag and Sanofi Aventis.

Jan Scott (pictured) is Professor of Psychological Medicine at the University of Newcastle, UK. She is a Distinguished Founding Fellow of the Academy of Cognitive Therapy.

{dagger} See pp. 412–23, this issue.

Like recent medication studies, it appears that when cognitive–behavioural therapy is tested in pragmatic effectiveness trials involving routine clinical populations it does not fare as well as in efficacy trials. Given the multitude of factors that can `muddy the waters' in clinical trials, how do we best make sense of the findings?


Related articles in BJP:

Cognitive–behavioural therapy and family intervention for relapse prevention and symptom reduction in psychosis: randomised controlled trial
Philippa A. Garety, David G. Fowler, Daniel Freeman, Paul Bebbington, Graham Dunn, and Elizabeth Kuipers
BJP 2008 192: 412-423. [Abstract] [Full Text]  

From the Editor's desk
Peter Tyrer
BJP 2008 192: 482. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
K. Marlowe
Risk of harm after psychological intervention
The British Journal of Psychiatry, October 1, 2008; 193(4): 345 - 345.
[Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

Mindfulness Based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (MBCT) and awareness in basic requirements for Evide
Alain Braillon, et al.
BJP Online, 31 Jul 2008 [Full text]