Oxford Guide to Low Intensity CBT Interventions 2010
DOI: 10.1093/med:psych/9780199590117.003.0050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From classroom to ‘shop floor’: challenges faced as a low intensity practitioner

Abstract: Chapter 50 addresses some of the challenges of the role, and offers some solutions ‘from the shop floor’. There are many ways in which our roles have been rewarding. However, for this chapter, we have purposely focused on some of the ‘challenges’ we have faced so that other practitioners, supervisors, and managers can avoid common pitfalls. We conclude by suggesting a few tips that we have found helpful in supporting our practice as LI practitioners.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although LICBT clinical protocols have been published [ 68 ], the TIDieR checklist represents a systematic and structured approach to facilitating detailed intervention descriptions. The provision of a systematic and structured clinical protocol may be of particular importance, given that therapeutic drift [ 101 ] in supporting LICBT is commonly reported [ 102 ]. In addition, the content of LICBT interventions differs significantly [ 34 , 103 ] and is poorly described [ 104 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although LICBT clinical protocols have been published [ 68 ], the TIDieR checklist represents a systematic and structured approach to facilitating detailed intervention descriptions. The provision of a systematic and structured clinical protocol may be of particular importance, given that therapeutic drift [ 101 ] in supporting LICBT is commonly reported [ 102 ]. In addition, the content of LICBT interventions differs significantly [ 34 , 103 ] and is poorly described [ 104 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%