Lynn S J, Kirsch I, Barabasz A, Cardeña E, Patterson D
Psychology Department, State University of New York at Binghamton 13902, USA.
Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2000 Apr;48(2):239-59. doi: 10.1080/00207140008410050.
Drawing on the literature reviews of this special issue of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (2000), this article summarizes the evidence for the effectiveness of hypnosis as an empirically supported clinical intervention. As a whole, the clinical research to date generally substantiates the claim that hypnotic procedures can ameliorate some psychological and medical conditions, as judged against the Chambless and Hollon methodological guidelines. In many cases, these clinical procedures can also be quite cost-effective. It is probable that with some key empirical refinement a number of other hypnosis treatment protocols will have sufficient empirical documentation to be considered "well-established." However, it is noted that the Chambless and Hollon guidelines are not particularly well-suited for assessing hypnosis' impact when used adjunctly with other interventions. The article concludes with recommendations regarding the efficacy questions that need to be more fully addressed empirically and offers methodological guidelines for researchers and practitioners.
基于《国际临床与实验催眠杂志》（2000年）这一特刊的文献综述，本文总结了催眠作为一种经实证支持的临床干预手段有效性的证据。总体而言，根据钱布利斯和霍伦的方法学指南判断，迄今为止的临床研究普遍证实了催眠程序可以改善某些心理和医学状况这一说法。在许多情况下，这些临床程序也可能具有很高的成本效益。通过一些关键的实证改进，很可能其他一些催眠治疗方案将有足够的实证记录被视为“成熟的”。然而，需要指出的是，钱布利斯和霍伦的指南在评估催眠与其他干预措施联合使用时的影响方面并不是特别适用。文章最后针对需要通过实证更全面解决的疗效问题提出了建议，并为研究人员和从业者提供了方法学指南。
