TY - JOUR

T1 - A five-year evaluation of the Human Givens therapy using a practice research network

AU - Andrews, William Peter

AU - Wislocki, Andrew Peter

AU - Short, Fay

AU - Chow, Daryl

AU - Minami, Takuya

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Purpose– To replicate the Luton pilot study (Andrews et al., 2011), both by investigating treatment changes using the Human Givens (HG) approach via a practice research network (PRN) and by assessing the viability of replacing the 34-item Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) with the ten-item version (CORE-10).Design/methodology/approach– Clients were included if they were offered the HG approach to manage psychological distress and attended at least one measured treatment session following their initial assessment. Pre-post treatment effect size (Cohen's d) was benchmarked against data from Clark et al. (2009). Potential differences in treatment effects based on type of termination (planned vs unplanned) and medication use were examined.Findings– High correlation between the CORE-10 and CORE-OM and near-identical calculated effect sizes support the utilisation of CORE-10 as a routine outcome measure. Pre-post treatment effect size suggests that clients treated using the HG approach experienced relief from psychological distress.Research limitations/implications– There was no experimental control nor evidence about the precise components of the HG treatment. Data on problem description and duration may not be reliable.Practical implications– This larger study, involving thousands of cases in a wide variety of settings, reinforces the findings from the pilot study as to the plausibility of the HG approach in the relief of emotional distress.Originality/value– The viability of using a ten-item scale to reliably measure treatment effectiveness will allow organisations to assess the quality of their treatment with minimal disruption to their service delivery allowing for true evidence-based practice. A PRN provides a suitable mechanism to assess psychotherapy treatment effectiveness in real-world settings.

AB - Purpose– To replicate the Luton pilot study (Andrews et al., 2011), both by investigating treatment changes using the Human Givens (HG) approach via a practice research network (PRN) and by assessing the viability of replacing the 34-item Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) with the ten-item version (CORE-10).Design/methodology/approach– Clients were included if they were offered the HG approach to manage psychological distress and attended at least one measured treatment session following their initial assessment. Pre-post treatment effect size (Cohen's d) was benchmarked against data from Clark et al. (2009). Potential differences in treatment effects based on type of termination (planned vs unplanned) and medication use were examined.Findings– High correlation between the CORE-10 and CORE-OM and near-identical calculated effect sizes support the utilisation of CORE-10 as a routine outcome measure. Pre-post treatment effect size suggests that clients treated using the HG approach experienced relief from psychological distress.Research limitations/implications– There was no experimental control nor evidence about the precise components of the HG treatment. Data on problem description and duration may not be reliable.Practical implications– This larger study, involving thousands of cases in a wide variety of settings, reinforces the findings from the pilot study as to the plausibility of the HG approach in the relief of emotional distress.Originality/value– The viability of using a ten-item scale to reliably measure treatment effectiveness will allow organisations to assess the quality of their treatment with minimal disruption to their service delivery allowing for true evidence-based practice. A PRN provides a suitable mechanism to assess psychotherapy treatment effectiveness in real-world settings.

U2 - 10.1108/MHRJ-04-2013-0011

DO - 10.1108/MHRJ-04-2013-0011

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 165

EP - 176

JO - Mental Health Review Journal

JF - Mental Health Review Journal

SN - 2042-8758

IS - 3

ER -