Totally serious. Evidence sure is being generated. Accidental honesty.
Same approach as with CBT/GET they did with PACE. "We're testing it, but we know that it works so let's use it immediately, once you do that it's impossible to stop". They counted chickens and they didn't even have any eggs. But the promise of chickens is, somehow, good enough because there are zero standards here.
This is a lot like implementing bad legislation, knowing that once things get in motion they become unstoppable, too many people commit to it.
I can't remember which of the LC study this was, but in a paper where they talked about the trial they are doing (doing a paper about doing a paper, now that's publish-and-perish on steroids), they already planned for how it would be implemented, they assume they will be able to generate the evidence they want, and they sure are correct about that.
It's the foot-in-the-door strategy. This is a travelling salesperson strategy. The customer isn't interested, but if they can't close the door, you just can annoying/bore them until they relent. Except with a lot more coercion and a complete power asymmetry.
I don't think there's ever been a less serious group of professionals. Even in annoying scifi movies where they put unnecessary drama, turning what are supposed to be skilled professionals into moody teenagers, the level of professionalism is clearly higher, there is dedication to the overall goals. It's a damn scripted plot device, and it's still more serious than this scripted garbage.
Agree this is very serious indeed. For a start, why is the following kind of thing not happening with this - a really interesting re-analysis that focuses on whether the answer to certain wording in Qs actually is proof of the claim/what the authors thought it was measuring?
https://www.bps.org.uk/research-dig...sy-it-implant-false-memories-committing-crime
Don't understand how there isn't some oversight left that insists such things need proper independent assessment - including drawing up what the right criteria are for the questionnaire to actually mean an illness at all, or just actually feeling better or worse or being less/more debilitated.
And there is no reason at all they can't pilot this in e.g. 3 counties and e.g. a trained psychologist assessment + special CAB extra funding for person-focused adjustments and support-person in 3 comparable counties (for issues that are appropriate). And for start and finish +1yr follow-ups to compare how people are doing to be by someone utterly independent of the people dragging into being party to choosing to 'buy' or 'sell' either option. eg if GPs/ICBs have signed up to have one to offer to their patients they will be part of wanting to see it has worked because that is how we all are with something.
Particularly for psychology as a proper subject area. But have the diagnoses and definitions of illnesses become so muddied and non-specific at the same time as the sector set-up with different 'players' clinging on for shares and all sorts of political ins and outs that this becomes fraught with backing horses from a funding/commercial/partnerships and so on point of view rather than actual good for the patient treatment?
There must still be some good parts of some scientific psychology departments that haven't been 'BioPsychoSocial'ed' and do see themselves as a task being to audit and watch-over 'treatment' areas. ie parts that aren't making money out of offering their own. But do care about methods. I don't know why the deal isn't that the sector isn't separated by funders to say those institutions that 'produce' treatments ie have conflicts with big contracts (in future, past or present) can't apply for contracts that assess state-of-sector, state-of-conditions and their knowledge, independent comparison of treatments. Even if an individual wasn't conflicted the political pressure would otherwise be surely there from the institution or partnership. Nevermind the 'mark your own homework'. Why is anything getting these huge roll-outs without the 'other' methods area having to sign it off?
There seem to be some common institutions that seem to be behind most of these revolving-door variations-on-themes so there must be many others who haven't gone in both-feet who could re-position to be auditors. The idea the BioPsychoSocial want to give out that you have to be in their niche area and ideology to comment on them is of course just protectionist nonsense.
CBT initially came from 'the other side' [to psychoanalysis/Freud] but has been made non-specific to a delivery-type mode, and confused into being sold as the same thing whatever 'school' and ergo model and mechanisms are actually behind it (and here it just being good mainly is sold on 'it's an app'). Which isn't true. CBT
not being about 'the past' but 'the present' when it was a model for example focused on social anxiety or phobia and a short course because someone was effectively tackling facing that, was one of the main reasons it gained such popularity as a mode - ie it was the very issues with psycholanalytic and assuming 'trauma' and 'the past' that caused the swing for it to be 'in-mode' due to avoiding these. I'm still flummoxed how it allowed it's name to then be used for very different models and ideologies and still 'use' that.
And wondering how this can cover the spectrum up to PTSD here. It just seems a risky area from a liability perspective to tackle with AI (I can't think of how you'd instruct the 'higher level concepts' and warnings of what to avoid doing you'd perhaps need, whilst also being able to do anything useful).
The big scandal that I remember that changed the sector for a long time was false memory syndrome where memories were being 'implanted' - and that debate still rages on:
https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/recovered-and-false-memories
I do find it quite astounding with anything 'trauma' getting touched upon that times might have moved on where there isn't careful analysis of how safely this is being done.
As this and other issues/well-known backfires are taught as key lessons/learning points in order that the subject is supposed to be allowed to oversee such areas with insight and knowledge of where things go awry with factors implicit in any scenario e.g. power differentials, social psychology inc. peer pressures, group psychology, wishful thinking, means to an end, working with 'whole people in whole situations' and not 'sausage machine issues' and so on.
You'd expect these would all be needing to be discussed and accounted for in methods where there could be implicit perceived threats or risks e.g. if a workplace or school 'wanted you to try x' or where those assessing were also doing.
