A VUELTAS CON LA COMPARACIÓN DE PSICOTERAPIAS: EN BUSCA DE LA SUPERVIVENCIA DEL PROFESIONAL

Abstract

Hot debates about the comparative effectiveness of psychological treatments have led us to an impasse. This is analyzed from two perspectives: a) an academic debate, where the most acknowledged proposal (evidence-based treatments) is compared with a number of alternative ones (common factors models, psychotherapy relationships, expertise in psychotherapy); b) the emotional impact on practitioners, who can feel overwhelmed by the huge number of models, the mismatch between them and the typical work environments, and disappointments after committing allegiance to therapies that turn out to be fallible. In order to overcome this stalemate in a fruitful way, a new approach is suggested, which involves applying a certain amount of irreverence, accepting epistemological limitations, valuing practical wisdom, tolerating a certain ingenuity, and developing some of the attitudes we recommend to our patients.