Consultant Clinical Psychologist. International Centre for Health and Human Rights, Director. University of East London, Professor of Clinical Psychology. Correspondence to:
Consultant Clinical Psychologist.University College London, Proffessor of Clinical Health Psychology. Correspondence to:
Torture. 2022;32(1,2):227-250. doi: 10.7146/torture.v32i1-2.131776.
Whilst it is established that torture survivors suffer from complex, multiple and often severe and enduring physical, psychological, social, welfare and many other difficulties; and that rehabilitation as reparation should be holistic, interdisciplinary and specialist, majority of the research on rehabilitation focuses increasingly and almost exclusively on psychological interventions. Further, as-sumptions that this research provides evi-dence of which are effective psychological interventions may underpin and skew ser-vices funded and provided to torture sur-vivors. In this paper we challenge some of those assumptions, and discuss the concep-tual, theoretical, epistemological and meth-odological limitations of this research and implications for future research.
虽然已经确定酷刑幸存者遭受着复杂的、多重的、往往是严重且持久的身体、心理、社会、福利和许多其他方面的困难；而且康复作为赔偿应该是全面的、跨学科的和专业的，但大多数关于康复的研究越来越多地且几乎完全集中在心理干预上。此外，这些研究提供了有效的心理干预措施的假设，可能会影响和扭曲为酷刑幸存者提供资金和服务的方式。在本文中，我们对其中的一些假设提出了质疑，并讨论了该研究在概念、理论、认识论和方法论方面的局限性，以及对未来研究的影响。
