Herbert James D
Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1192, USA.
Behav Modif. 2003 Jul;27(3):412-30. doi: 10.1177/0145445503027003008.
Despite impressive gains over the past three decades in the development and evaluation of empirically supported psychotherapies, such treatments are not used widely by front-line practicing clinicians. In an attempt to address this science-practice gap, efforts have turned recently to constructing lists of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) and disseminating information about these treatments to professionals and the public. This effort has been met with criticism, however, by both practitioners, on one hand, and psychotherapy researchers on the other. The current procedures for identifying ESTs are critically reviewed, and recommendations are offered to improve the scientific viability of the process. It is argued that lists of ESTs are viewed most productively as one step toward the development of best practice guidelines.
尽管在过去三十年里,实证支持的心理治疗方法在开发和评估方面取得了令人瞩目的进展,但一线临床医生并未广泛使用这些治疗方法。为了弥合这一科学与实践之间的差距,最近人们致力于构建实证支持治疗方法(ESTs)列表,并向专业人士和公众传播有关这些治疗方法的信息。然而,这一努力受到了来自从业者和心理治疗研究人员两方面的批评。本文对当前识别ESTs的程序进行了批判性审查,并提出了改进该过程科学可行性的建议。有人认为,ESTs列表最有效地被视为朝着制定最佳实践指南迈出的一步。