What meta analysis shows the inefficacy of psychoanalysis? Despite being apparently on the side of science, you didn’t bother to cite any actual science. Ironic
> What meta analysis shows the inefficacy of psychoanalysis? Despite being apparently on the side of science, you didn’t bother to cite any actual science. Ironic
Look, if you are so interested in this, why don't you do the research yourself?
I literally just googled "meta-analysis psychoanalysis" and the very first link that came up [1] was, surprisingly, a meta-analysis about psychoanalysis which concluded the abstract with the following phrase:
"In contrast to previous reviews, we found the evidence for the effectiveness of LTPP [long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy] to be limited and at best conflicting."
I'm not interested in wasting more of my time on this topic, so don't expect any more replies.
Here’s a study from a month or two ago (10 years after your meta analysis) with n=216 and long term follow up showing (high, increasing) efficacy. You seem confused about the conclusions there, that doesn’t discredit psychoanalysis, it encourages further study. And here is further study. You should try to be more rigorous in your thinking.
See, this is exactly why I didn't want to cite any particular study or analysis.
I knew this was going to turn into this pointless debate.
I even mentioned it in my parent comment that you can always find some study which says the opposite of what I'm saying. That does not refute what I said and it is not how science works.
You have to analyze a bunch of evidence, from many studies and meta-studies together as a whole, you can't just pick and choose the studies that are more convenient to you.
Not to mention that you asked me to cite a meta-analysis (which I did) and then you counter-act with a single study about a single trial.
So here's the thing: I am not interested in you citing me any study or meta-analysis. As I said before, I'm not interested in continuing this discussion.
I was just arguing what I know about this topic and what I've learned from experts (in psychology and methodology, mostly) and my own research.
You can feel free to ignore me or to continue arguing, but I'm not going to answer anymore.
I don't have a horse in this race and I don't want to waste any more of my time.
You claimed psychoanalysis is discredited. You are wrong, and I proved you wrong. Is the debate about its scientific status ongoing? Yes. But you were foolish with your words, and should retract them.
The study you linked is for specific narrow treatment techniques in intensive inpatient psychotherapy, as compared with more typical psychotherapy treatment in the community for people on the waitlist.
There are a handful of problems I can think of for using a waitlist in the community receiving traditional psychotherapy as a control for a group receiving intensive inpatient treatment.
But the article you linked does not support your point in the context of this discussion.
It doesn’t. It only proves there are still people trying to continue their careers in a field they have deeply invested in, in training, education, clientele, and professional network.
It does not demonstrate the effectiveness of psychiatric treatment by any reasonable standard.
The control group is corrupted, the control-treatment pairs for comparison were selected by the researchers, and the provided “psychiatric treatment” includes
> In addition to weekly individual sessions the inpatient program at both groups contained two 75 min group sessions each week. In addition, VITA had shorter group meetings each morning (15 minutes). Patients in both treatments participated in two physical exercise sessions per week, weekly psycho-educational lectures and art-therapy groups, and both groups finish each week with end of the week status groups. On average, patients in both treatments received seven sessions of therapeutic activity each week.
“Both treatments” here is not control and treatment but both intensive treatments.
You can get large effects in almost everything by completely changing a person’s experiential environment from their prior environment, which is what they did here. In addition to everything listed, their sleeping conditions, diet, daily routine, and social environment were probably dramatically changed, although the researchers didn’t record that so we can’t know.
It’s impossible to tell if the actual psychiatric interventions were effective. This fact, though, is particularly damning as to the efficacy of the actual treatments provided:
>The analysis also showed minimal differences between the two intensive inpatient treatments, suggesting that the differences in effect may not be due to the theoretical rationale within the inpatient treatment but rather the treatment context.
There were no significant differences between two very different treatment modalities. This essentially admits that “something else” and not the psychiatric treatments were responsible for the uptick. My guess is regular schedule, connecting with people (community formation) and mattering to someone, none of which do you get from psychiatric treatments.
The very same Wikipedia article cited at the top of this thread includes links to several meta analyses demonstrating psychoanalysis’ effectiveness. The evidence is not conclusive, because it is apparently difficult to study psychoanalysis, but it falls on the side of it being effective.
Very far from discredited, as you seem to want to claim (with no evidence). Difficult to study != disproven
I’m not claiming it is discredited, but you seem to think that it must be either discredited or proven.
My position is that the extended difficulty over the past hundred years in supporting it scientifically means it is in essence not a science. It is too complex to measure using these means and so science in pursuit of “proving the efficiency of psychiatric treatments” where psychiatric treatments are anything more than medications is largely a waste of time and effort, and will remain so until or unless we develop better methods of addressing complexity in a rigorous way.
That seems like a reasonable position to me. I’m mostly here because psychoanalysis gets an unfair rep. People say it’s not science or it’s discredited and they mean that it’s junk, but it is not junk, and there is no reason to think so.
SSRIs were demonstrated using medical science. The study referenced here is hot garbage, and I’m not excited to spend my day digging for counterfactuals in meta-analyses of questionable science.
The reproducibility of the studies feeding into the meta analysis is less than 50/50. Why bother to perform a meta-analysis on noise? The fact that people do tells you a lot about the state of psychiatry as a science.
