The fundamental need for lived experience perspectives in developing and evaluating psychotherapies.
- 1 March 2023
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Vol. 91 (3), 119-121
- https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000798
Abstract
This article discusses the fundamental need for lived experience perspectives in developing and evaluating psychotherapies. The primary professional goal of clinical psychology is to serve individuals and communities living with or at risk of mental illness. To date, the field has fallen persistently short of this goal, despite decades of research on evidence-based treatments and myriad innovations in psychotherapy research. Brief and low-intensity programs, transdiagnostic approaches, and digital mental health tools have all challenged long-held assumptions of what "psychotherapy" can be, pointing toward novel pathways to effective care. And yet, population-level rates of mental illness are high and rising, access to care remains abysmally low, early treatment dropout among people who do access care is common, and science-backed treatments rarely make it into everyday practice. The author argues that the impact of psychotherapy innovations has been constrained by a fundamental flaw in clinical psychology's intervention development and evaluation pipeline. . From the start, intervention science has deprioritized the views and voices of those our treatments aim to support-from here, "experts by experience" (EBEs)-in the design, assessment, and dissemination of novel treatments. EBE-partnered research can strengthen engagement, inform best-practices, and personalize assessments of meaningful clinical change. Further, in fields adjacent to clinical psychology, EBE engagement in research is common. These facts render the virtual absence of EBE partnership from mainstream psychotherapy research especially striking. Without centering EBE views, intervention scientists cannot optimize supports for the diverse communities they aim to serve. Instead, they risk building programs that people with mental health needs may never access, benefit from, or want. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).Funding Information
- National Institutes of Health (DP5OD028123)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R43MH128075, R25MH080916)
- Upswing Fund for Adolescent Mental Health
- National Science Foundation (2141710)
- Health Research and Services Association (U3NHP45406-01-00)
- Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
- HopeLab
- Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Leveraging the Strengths of Psychologists With Lived Experience of PsychopathologyPerspectives on Psychological Science, 2022
- Only Human: Mental-Health Difficulties Among Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychology Faculty and TraineesPerspectives on Psychological Science, 2022
- The utility of patient‐reported outcome measures in mental healthWorld Psychiatry, 2022
- A randomized trial of online single-session interventions for adolescent depression during COVID-19Nature Human Behaviour, 2021
- Acceptability and Utility of an Open-Access, Online Single-Session Intervention Platform for Adolescent Mental HealthJMIR Mental Health, 2020
- Parent-Adolescent Agreement About Adolescent’s Suicidal Thoughts: A DivergencePEDIATRICS, 2019
- Annual Research Review: Expanding mental health services through novel models of intervention deliveryJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2018
- What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: A multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice.American Psychologist, 2017
- Systematic review of barriers and facilitators to accessing and engaging with mental health care among at‐risk young peopleAsia-Pacific Psychiatry, 2015
- Paternalism, autonomy and reciprocity: ethical perspectives in encounters with patients in psychiatric in-patient careBMC Medical Ethics, 2013