Abstract
There is a gap in the literature concerning the efficacy versus effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). Effectiveness relates to how treatments work in practice. Efficacy measures how they work in clinical trials with stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria. We assessed treatment in a regular clinic setting to determine effectiveness of CBT as it is usually delivered. This study audits the effectiveness of CBT in a real-world setting rather than efficacy.
Highlights
There is a gap in the literature concerning the efficacy versus effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Acquired Brain Injury (ABI)
In our sample, CBT was effective from pre- to post-treatment, and there was evidence of long-lasting improvement over a 3.5 year follow-up for depression
Khan-Bourne and Brown [5] comment that “CBT has an intuitive appeal in the management of depression following brain injury (i) It accommodates and seeks to tackle the many personal and social sequelae that may contribute to psychological morbidity both acutely and chronically; (ii) It provides the therapist with a wide range of tools with which to work; and (iii) Is inherently flexible with the potential for accommodating differences in individual circumstances” (p. 98)
Summary
There is a gap in the literature concerning the efficacy versus effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Acquired Brain Injury (ABI). CBT, based on a cognitive model of depression [1] conceptualizes thoughts as directly influencing the development and maintenance of emotions and behaviors [2]. Khan-Bourne and Brown [5] comment that “CBT has an intuitive appeal in the management of depression following brain injury (i) It accommodates and seeks to tackle the many personal and social sequelae that may contribute to psychological morbidity both acutely and chronically; (ii) It provides the therapist with a wide range of tools with which to work; and (iii) Is inherently flexible with the potential for accommodating differences in individual circumstances” Case and group-outcomes are reported on in meta-analyses by Stalder-Lüthy, et al [9] and Waldron, Casserly, and Accepted: January 02, 2020
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
