Systematic empirical research versus clinical case studies

Eagle, Morris N.; Wolitzky, David L.

doi:10.1177/0003065111416652

Cited by 48 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the rhetorical nature of Green's argumentation, his position captured something of the reservations of a considerable number of psychoanalysts in the two quite different European psychoanalytic cultures of France and the UK. Debates along similar lines have occurred in the US: for example, Hoffman's plenary presentation at the 2007 Winter meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association (Hoffman, ) and the ensuing occasionally bitter exchanges with the empirical researchers and analysts – Eagle and Wolitzky, ; Safran, and Fonagy, ; and in Hoffman's replies in 2012–13. On the psychoanalytic ‘side’ the central objection is that when the methods of empirical science (and therefore those of evidence‐based medicine) are applied, something of the openness to human nature that is essential to psychoanalysis is closed down; what results is both a limited view of the human psyche and flawed therapy outcome findings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Treatment manuals and the advancement of psychoanalytic knowledge: The treatment manual of the tavistock adult depression study

Taylor

2015

The International Journal of Psychoanalysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper has two aims: first, it seeks to understand the absence of treatment manuals in psychoanalysis. Secondly, it summarizes the treatment manual of the Tavistock Adult Depression Study, which describes the form of psychoanalytic psychotherapy whose effectiveness has been evaluated both in the Tavistock Adult Depression Study (TADS); and in the German Die Langzeittherapie bei chronischen Depressionen (LAC) Studie. Throughout the history of psychoanalysis, opinions about treatment manuals, empirical research and their antecedents have been deeply divided. After tracing the often polarized unfolding of these matters, the paper proposes that emotional and cognitive difficulties as well as scientific ones underpin their persistence. It is suggested that greater familiarity with them may lead to better combinations of outcome research and psychoanalysis: for example, the Tavistock manual seeks to match one account of the objects, aims, values, spirit and methods of psychoanalysis (as well as of connected forms of psychoanalytic psychotherapy); and also to meet what is required of treatment manuals by random allocation controlled trials. It has been a crucial element in the above studies of the outcome of long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapies with chronically depressed patients. After describing the Tavistock Manual, the paper concludes suggesting that, if appropriately constructed, treatment manuals can make a contribution to the advancement of specifically psychoanalytic knowledge.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Treatment manuals and the advancement of psychoanalytic knowledge: The treatment manual of the tavistock adult depression study

Taylor

2015

The International Journal of Psychoanalysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their response to Hoffman, Eagle and Wolitzky () wonder why the antagonism between the two forms of understanding exists. They maintain that each method addresses different issues and for that reason, rather than consider these methods in conflict with one another, it is worthwhile to use the evidence each one brings forth according to what sort of problem one is dealing with.…”

Section: Hermeneutics Versus Empirical Research: Hoffman's Polemic Wimentioning

confidence: 99%

What kind of discipline is psychoanalysis?

Bernardi

2015

The International Journal of Psychoanalysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current controversies involving clinical, conceptual and empirical research shed light on how psychoanalysis confronts its nature and its future. Some relevant debates in which Wallerstein, Green, Hoffman, Eagle and Wolitzky, Safran, Stern, Blass and Carmeli, and Panksepp have participated are examined regarding the characteristics of their argumentation. Agreements and disagreements are explored to find ways that could have allowed the discussion to progress. Two foci are highlighted in these debates: (a) whether a clinical common ground exists in psychoanalysis and what kind of procedure could contribute to further clarification; (b) complementation of in-clinical and extra-clinical evidence. Both aspects are scrutinized: the possibility of complementing diverse methodologies, and the nature of the shared clinical evidence examined in clinical discussion groups such as those promoted by the IPA Clinical Observation Committee. The importance of triangulation and consilience is brought to bear regarding their contribution to the robustness of psychoanalysis. So as to strengthen a critical perspective that enhances the discipline's argumentative field, psychoanalysis should take into account arguments from different sources according to their specific merits. By doing this, psychoanalysis increases its relevance within the current interdisciplinary dialogue.

show abstract

“…In light of this specialist literature, we can understand the basis for the concerns that have recently been raised within the clinical community (Eagle and Wolitzky 2011) about the slow disappearance of the effective practice of case reporting and how this could undermine the processes by which best practices, lessons learned and expert opinions circulate and are shared in medical communities. These concerns provided the main motivations for the development and experimentation of the system that is reported in this paper.…”

Section: The Decline Of Case Reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On a QUESt for a web-based tool promoting knowledge-sharing in medical communities

Cabitza

2014

Behaviour & Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reports on the design and development of QUESt, a platform that is aimed at enabling lay users to deploy webbased multi-page dynamic questionnaires. The platform requires little effort and no programming skills, as it uses a simple configuration file that can be expressed in an almost unstructured and text-based manner. We have validated the approach and platform in the healthcare domain, where the questionnaires were intended to solicit and collect both structured and unstructured feedback from large communities of practitioners in response to the sharing and dissemination of relevant case studies; more specifically in this paper we use a qualitative research approach, encompassing evaluation questionnaires and a particular kind of focus group, and the incremental prototype-based development that led to the current release of QUESt. The paper also reports on the experimentation of the platform in a real context, involving almost 100 orthopaedics, including the post-use evaluation of the participants. In light of this evaluation, we discuss the specific requirements of openness and flexibility that end-users ask for in order to be autonomous in developing their own tools for knowledge-sharing; in particular, we discuss the role of lightweight tools, like QUESt to support the dissemination and discussion of clinical case reports.

show abstract

Systematic empirical research versus clinical case studies

Cited by 48 publications

References 36 publications

Treatment manuals and the advancement of psychoanalytic knowledge: The treatment manual of the tavistock adult depression study

Treatment manuals and the advancement of psychoanalytic knowledge: The treatment manual of the tavistock adult depression study

What kind of discipline is psychoanalysis?

On a QUESt for a web-based tool promoting knowledge-sharing in medical communities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About