Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Evaluation of CBT. - Coggle Diagram
Evaluation of CBT.
Work with those that don't respond to other treatments. :check:
Sensky et al (2000).
CBT effective in treating patients not responding to drugs. :check:
Continued to improve 9 months after treatment had ended.
Shows positive effect was also long lasting. :check:
Research support. :check:
Terrier et al (2000)
Over 20 sessions with drugs along with 4 booster sessions across the year made more significant improvement than drugs alone. :check:
Kiupers et al (1997)
Lower drop out rates and higher satisfaction with CBT and drugs. :check:
When used together, both treatments considered more effective. :check:
Research support :check:
CBT patients suffer from fewer hallucinations and delusions. :check:
Also recover to a higher degree :check:
Drury et al (1996).
25-50% reduction in recovery time. :check:
When using both drugs and CBT.
Fewer side effects. :check:
Not at risk of other illness such as diabetes. :check:
However, more expensive and costly. :red_cross:
May not be readily available. :red_cross:
Insurance may not cover it. :red_cross:
Requires full involvement of patient. :red_cross:
Only 1 in 10 offered in the UK :red_cross:
Some psychiatrists believe Sz may not benefit from it. :red_cross:
May not be appropriate for all patients :red_cross:
Kingdon et al. (2006).
142 in Hampshire.
Many not suitable for CBT . :red_cross:
Won't engage with therapy. :red_cross:
Older patients less suitable than older patients. :red_cross:
Too disorientated, agitated, paranoid to trust therapists :red_cross:
Research into effectiveness is criticised. :red_cross:
Meta-analysis of 50 studies of CBT
Only small effect on symptoms, including positive ones. :red_cross:
Positive symptoms is what it aims to target. :red_cross: