ABSTRACT

In light of two recent meta-analyses of the efficacy of group psychotherapy in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), this article critically reviews the randomized control trial (RCT) generated findings as well as two of its outgrowths—the production of a variety of clinical practice guidelines for treating PTSD and the dissemination efforts to transfer laboratory findings to clinical practice. All three of these activities have received considerable pushback from experienced clinicians and Boulder-identified scientist practitioners, creating an ongoing and entrenched gap or split between researcher and clinician. The article also reviews the various suggestions that have been offered to heal this gap and ending the hegemony of RCT outcome research as the only game in town for declaring what constitutes evidence. Specifically, the literature suggests two primary strategies for helping to realize the scientist-practitioner model and thus advancing the cause of psychotherapy, in general, and group psychotherapy, in particular: (a) leveling the playing field so that both researcher and practitioner have real authority and voices for shaping the field; and (b) shifting the research priority away from a purely outcome focus, asking only does it work, and moving to a more sophisticated, theoretically guided empirical study of process-outcome, examining the how, why, when, and for whom it works.

 抽象的

鉴于最近两项关于团体心理治疗治疗创伤后应激障碍 (PTSD) 疗效的荟萃分析，本文批判性地回顾了随机对照试验 (RCT) 产生的结果及其两个成果——产生了多种治疗 PTSD 的临床实践指南以及将实验室研究结果转化为临床实践的传播工作。所有这三项活动都受到了经验丰富的临床医生和博尔德科学家从业者的相当大的阻力，在研究人员和临床医生之间造成了持续的、根深蒂固的差距或分裂。文章还回顾了为弥合这一差距并结束 RCT 结果研究霸权而提出的各种建议，RCT 结果研究是宣布什么构成证据的唯一游戏。具体来说，文献提出了两种主要策略，以帮助实现科学家-从业者模型，从而推动一般心理治疗和团体心理治疗的事业，特别是：（a）创造公平的竞争环境，使研究人员和从业者都有真正的机会。塑造该领域的权威和声音； (b) 将研究重点从纯粹的结果焦点转移，只询问它是否有效，并转向更复杂的、以理论为指导的过程结果实证研究，检查它如何、为什么、何时以及为谁起作用。