The potential loss of the who and why of human suffering within evidence-based practice.

P. Lysaker,D. Roe
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/02793695-20130130-04
2013-03-01
Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services
Abstract:Within the mental health field, one of the most influential movements of the past decade is one referred to as evidence-based practice. This movement has sought to systematically identify and promote the implementation of scientifically established treatments. Although this movement emerged as part of the natural need to determine how to best respond to mental health conditions, we suggest that like many social, political, and scientific developments, it is not without its potential dangers, no matter how unintended. In this short piece, we wish to explore three potentially initially unforeseen risks that we believe may have emerged with this movement. These are a loss of focus on (a) the context within which human suffering occurs; (b) what generates change; and (c) how change should be measured. Our intention is to stimulate discussion about possible issues that are arising as this movement progresses. We explicitly, however, do not wish to turn back the clock or support a nostalgic longing for an idealized past. Space constraints limit our ability to comment on the achievements of the evidence-based practice movement, although they are important and notable. The first issue we would like to raise concerns a loss of the importance of appraising the context, meaning, and ultimately culture within which psychological suffering occurs. The evidence-based practice movement has its roots in cautious assessment of what should be addressed by treatment. For instance, careful attention is paid to detecting psychosocial deficits and symptoms and then testing which approaches lead to group differences, often in randomized trials. Symptoms of depression, for example, as measured by questionnaire or interview, have been found to decrease after certain manualized interventions. However, psychological suffering and dysfunction can arise in grossly different contexts and hence mean very different things from person to person. As an example, consider five individuals who have reported the identical symptoms of major depression: prolonged sadness, poor sleep, anhedonia, fatigue, feelings of helplessness, poor concentration, and thoughts of death. Now, consider further that these people are (a) a 25-year-old man who was the driver in a car accident that caused the death of a parent; (b) a 35-year-old woman who has obtained a dream job and found it to be hollow; (c) a 45-year-old woman whose aspirations all seem to be met and can find no root for her distress; (d) a 55-year-old man who has secretly married four different women who have just found out about each other; and (e) a 65-year-old woman struggling to adapt to retirement. In this example, the suffering of each individual, albeit fulfilling the same diagnostic criteria, likely has a significantly different meaning, and it is thus difficult to imagine treatment could proceed without an awareness of those different meanings. Certainly, the evidence-based practice movement does not instruct clinicians to ignore this. The concern we raise, however, is the potential that this essential facet of clinical work—namely consideration of the context and meaning of any specific The Potential Loss of the Who and Why of Human Suffering within Evidence-Based Practice
What problem does this paper attempt to address?