Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 1

message: I have delisted this article from "Good Article" status. I find this article to be not at all "well written," "factually accurate" or "broad in its coverage." Consider:
* It is full of grammatical errors and unclarities, a few of which I have spent the afternoon correcting.
* The section on Cognitive Therapy consists entirely of the following:
:: "Cognitive behavioural therapy is particularly common where the mode of psychotherapy is dictated by the demands of insurance companies who wish to see a financially limited commitment."
: Source? Evidence? Relevance to this article?
* There is a section called "History" which is separated into different schools, and then a separate section called "Schools and approaches" which is divided into schools in a different way, mixing specific schools (Psychoanalysis, Cognitive therapy) other kinds of distinctions (Medical and non-medical models, Adaptations for children) and other information about schools (Effectiveness). Why not put the history of each school within the subsection for that school, and reserve the history section for general history? Why not describe what makes the schools different from one another instead of just linking to the article about each school? 
* The introduction goes into too much detail about distinctions in terms, obscuring the goal of a broad summary of the topic. 
* The Schools section is not just missing new and minor variants, but very major ones. Some are mentioned in General Description or History, but they should be organized together, with a brief description of each major category and how it differs from the others.
I don't know nearly enough about this subject to fix the article myself. (I was hoping to learn more by reading it.) Given the importance and profile of this subject, perhaps it should be the subject of an Article Improvement Drive (I will nominate it, click here to vote.) 
— Adam Konner 20:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article?

message: Can't something be said about this type of psychotherapy? Having a redirect to the main psychotherapy article is a bummer since it doesn't describe it at all. —Frecklefoot 17:22, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: In the list of types of psychotherapy, it lists "Rogersian" psychotherapy, which redirects to Carl Rogers, the inventor of Rogerian psychotherapy. I'm going to change the Rogerian psychotherapy redirect to a redirect to Carl Rogers, since it seems like that article is more useful to people looking up Rogerian psychotherapy. —AaronW 19:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rogerian psychotherapy

message: Many relaxation techniques are used in an Individual Treatment Plan, massage tharapy is one such type, so prob deserves a space, both here and on the massage page. I think that adding 'bodywork' might be confuse.. maybe with autobodywork (unless the stub makes it clear what is meant by the term. # chance0([ talk])
:Unfortunately, since "massage" is not covered by insurance (including medicare and medicaid in the US), especially not for treatment of mental illness, its use as a psychotherapeutic technique is exceptionally limited.  That is, only those who are willing and able to pay the full fee (~US$80-$200/hour) and who believe in the psychotherapeutic value of massage (very small subset of the above) would contract it.  I think, if anything, it should be made clear in this article, if its to be included, that this sort of treatment has a "fringe" status similar to homeopathy or other more accepted "alternative" treatments.
I would like to add that Massage Therapy *IS* considered a valid form of relaxation & or stress relief here in Canada.  Although our provincial insurance companies do not cover it in most provinces, nearly anyone with group health benefits through their emplyer is covered for anywhere from $300-$500 worth.  Most of these companies do not even require a Doctor's referral - patients may self-refer if they feel it is necessary.
:Also, it should be noted that other physical treatments, like ECT for example (which IS covered by major medical) are not listed on this page because, presumably, they are "physical therapy" not "psychotherapy".  "Massage therapy", as much as such a thing exists, might also be subject to the same distinction. siafu 18:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you said that, but the fact is that just because something is put on the ITP and signed off on does not mean that any insurance company is compelled to pay for it.  One could write "slaphappy facial therapy" on an ITP, have it signed, and it would be "valid", as a treatment plan though someone at the medicaid office would have a laughing fit if one attempted to bill for it. siafu 20:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Massage vs bodywork

message: would something like this work better??
psychotherapy
:Psychodynamic; 
::Freudian, 
::Adlerian, 
::Jungian, 
::Kleinian, 
::Self-psychology etc. 
:Systemic (including Family Psychotherapy); 
:Behavioural;  
:Humanistic; 
::Client-Centred, 
::Gestalt, 
::Transactional Analysis
:Somatic 
::Reichian, 
::neo-Reichian, 
::Bio-dynamic, 
::Bioenergetic, 
::Biosynthesis, 
::Hakomi
::Body psychotherapy’ 
::Body therapy;’ 
:::Feldenkrais, 
:::Alexander Technique, 
:::Rolfing, 
:::Hellerwork, 
:::Biodynamic massage
:Psychotherapy; 
:Transpersonal.
etc
: I like this approach, but any ideas on how to implement it in the article?   Perhaps we could use them as sub headings in the list of modalities.  Lumos3 20:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a better approach, also, but the list is still rather incomplete (Interpersonal?  DBT? CBT?).  Also, Feldenkrais (in particular) et. al don't belong in an article on psychotherapy, being massage therapies; psychotherapy has a bit more of a narrow definition, IMHO.  siafu 22:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: We don’t have to wait for this article to become accepted for an improvement drive, we can just start doing it.
My suggestions.
#The lists are put out into secondary articles.
#We establish a section structure . My suggestions would be
##Description - Build a consensus description of what Psychotherapy is
##History - Narrative of psychotherapy development, (with timeline as separate article)
##Categorisation of therapy types - with alternative views
##Criticisms of Psychotherapy 
##References
##See also
##Links
Lumos3 13:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in. Let's do it. JoeSmack (talk) 13:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I just added a brief description of brief counseling. I'm a bit concerned about trying to be too inclusive, which will likely lead to an article that is long on specifics but short on context. Separate articles on specific approaches seems to me a more sensible tact. NHBaritone--Nhbaritone 03:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this article

message: There are not references cited for this.  I have deleted the section...but put it below in case someone can find sources and references to support the statements. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section on Criticism

message: You guys are right that cousellors/nurses can practice psychotherapy, I don't remember what I was thinking.
Maybe it was to be called a "Psychotherapist" you have have a PhD in clinical psychology. It starts to get confusing when you step into 'therapy/couselling/psychotherapy' land...but everyone else can't be 'directive' -- i.e. a social worker cannot practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, right? JoeSmack (talk) 21:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:At least in the United States, there is no legal prevention from anyone at all practicing "psychotherapy", unfortunately, like there is for practicing medicine (including psychiatry) and law.  The issue usually is one of insurance billing and accreditation; that is, medicaid will only pay those with certain credentials to do certain services, with the requirement of being supervised by individuals.  In my own state (Illinois), the medicaid setup was recently changed to open up credentially even further, allowing individuals with only high-school educations to be able to bill for case management services (called "service coordination" in other parts of the country) and group therapy (also called PSR, partial hospitalization, or therapeutic behavioral services).  Private insurance companies are even more strict.  The most important constraint, really, is that without a license (LCSW, LCPC, etc.) a provider cannot become a member of any of the national organizations (ACSW, APA, etc.) and without at least a licensed clinician/psychiatrist (or a number thereof) facilities providing these services are liable to lose or not receive accreditation from CARF.   So, strictly speaking (AFAIK), there is no law preventing one from opening up "Joe's house of psychotherapy" and taking people's money in exchange for meaningless conversation, though referrals would be unlikely, billing a nightmare, and accreditation impossible, not to mention the issues of liability and one's own malpractice insurance. siafu 22:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Practice of Psychotherapy 

message: The lack of clarity about what constitutes pshcchotherapy versus counseling, and who is allowed to do what is one of my major pet peeves.  Where I live I can use any and all methods (except for prescribing medications or performing surgery) to treat any and all mental illnesses, enegage in long term family and marital counseling--without benefit of a professional license or any education whatsoever.  I can hypnotize large groups of people perform  age regression, recovered memory therapy.  I can legally prescribe primal scream therapy, group sexual encounters, or sexual intercourse with myself as a treatment for career disatisfaction, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, incest trauma, PTSD resulting from battlefield injury or domestic violence, or as a treatment for batterers--all fair and square legal eagle.  
All I have to do is log on to say the website of the Church of Universal Life and click the "Ordain Me!" button and call myself a "Pastoral Counselor."
And if my clients are harmed by me, they had better recover their mental health get their wits about them in time to sue me within three years, otherwise they are screwed. Cyclopiano 05:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastoral Counseling

message: I added a section on the "therapeutic relationship", but the whole page is badly organized and I'd like to move some sections around. Most of the content in "history" looks like it belongs in "schools and approaches", and there's yet another list of therapies under "general". Even some of the stuff under "criticism" overlaps with what I just added. My references should be moved to the reference section, but I'd like to see the page reorganized first (I just expanded on a paragraph that was at the end of "Schools and Approaches", and made it a separate section).
I'd like to see the parts that apply to all therapies at the top of the page (for NPOV), followed by the discussions of each type of therapy. Something like:
* General (including features common to all therapies)
** Therapeutic Relationship
* History (much shortened, more like a timeline)
* Criticism (maybe could use some references here)
* Schools and Approaches (including most of what is now under "History")
** subsections for each type of therapy
* see also, references, links, etc
I think I could do this without changing the actual content, but I'd like to see some discussion before I make such a major reorganization. -Rbean 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is a good idea except for shortening the history section.  Since the popular (flawed) understanding of psychotherapy is heavily influenced by a high-school understanding of freudian psychoanalysis, it's very important to clearly show the evolution of the field since then. siafu 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have added sub-categories under "schools and approaches", I have also peer reviewed the article and made many edits, and added some information such as adaptions for children. whicky1978 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganize sections?

message: Having just reviewed this article for Version 0.5, I noticed that the intro could probably benefit from a rewrite.  The current intro is rather clumsy and wordy, I think it could probably lose 20-40 words and improve clarity.  In addition, these sentences are unclear to me:
*"Often there is overlap in philosophies and techniques that both psychotherapists and counselors employ. In this article the term can be taken to be the same as psychotherapy."  
I'm not an expert in this area, otherwise I'd do the rewrite myself.  Could someone more knowledgable than me have a go at this?  Meanwhile, I have approved it for Version 0.5. Thanks, Walkerma 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded it.whicky1978 talk 03:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of intro?

message: Hello all.  I don't see how people here could have overlooked it. NLP is by far the most effective.  A cure in a single session!  Nothing else can beat that.  Mindstore 03:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Universal miracle cure claims are neither reliable nor encyclopedic. -- Beland 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP is the most effective so far