Take Care to Do No Harm: Harmful Interventions for Youth Problem Behavior.

Rhule, Dana M.

doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.6.618

Cited by 68 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, behavioral therapies, such as exposure and response prevention, tend to be more efficacious than nonbehavioral therapies for obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and specific phobia, as well as for most childhood disorders (Chambless & Ollendick, 2001;Hunsley & DiGuilio, 2002). More disconcertingly, recent evidence-much of it emerging only over the past decade-suggests that certain psychological treatments can produce harm in a nontrivial number of individuals (Beutler, Bongar, & Shurkin, 1998;Lambert & Miller, 2001;Rhule, 2005).…”

Section: The Dodo Bird Verdictmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite these admonitions, the field of clinical psychology has until fairly recently shown little concern with the problem of harmful treatments (Rhule, 2005). For example, Bergin and Garfield's authoritative and remarkably comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Therapy (Lambert, 2003), which psychologists have ranked as the premier book on psychotherapy (Boisvert & Faust, 2003), contains approximately 2.5 pages (out of a total of 821 pages of text) on the topic of adverse effects in therapy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm

Lilienfeld

2007

Perspect Psychol Sci

783

612

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phrase primum non nocere (“first, do no harm”) is a well-accepted credo of the medical and mental health professions. Although emerging data indicate that several psychological treatments may produce harm in significant numbers of individuals, psychologists have until recently paid little attention to the problem of hazardous treatments. I critically evaluate and update earlier conclusions regarding deterioration effects in psychotherapy, outline methodological obstacles standing in the way of identifying potentially harmful therapies (PHTs), provide a provisional list of PHTs, discuss the implications of PHTs for clinical science and practice, and delineate fruitful areas for further research on PHTs. A heightened emphasis on PHTs should narrow the scientist-practitioner gap and safeguard mental health consumers against harm. Moreover, the literature on PHTs may provide insight into underlying mechanisms of change that cut across many domains of psychotherapy. The field of psychology should prioritize its efforts toward identifying PHTs and place greater emphasis on potentially dangerous than on empirically supported therapies.

show abstract

Section: The Dodo Bird Verdictmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm

Lilienfeld

2007

Perspect Psychol Sci

783

612

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the Best Practice Portal 11 of the EM-CDDA has been compiling and updating information on the evidence-base of a range of demand reduction strategies. Now there are online registries of effective interventions in Spain 12 , in Germany 13 , by Blueprints 14 in the US and soon by Blueprints Europe 15 . Also Mentor International's Prevention Hub disseminates information about some evidence-based programmes.…”

Section: Standards Concerned With Staff Competenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prevention indeed can be harmful (Moos 2005;Sumnal et al 2007;Rhule 2005). Probably the ultimate aim of a certification system might be to avoid that:…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International standards in prevention: how to influence prevention systems by policy interventions?

Burkhart

2015

Int J Prev Treat Subst Use Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The existence of multiple standards for drug prevention, published by different national and international organisations, might seem redundant and confusing at a glance. This paper aims to explain the rationales of the different standards and that they differentially respond to specific challenges of each of the three main components of a prevention system: interventions, services and people. Effectiveness of standards can improve the effectiveness of programmes and interventions, while process standards can improve the context within which effective programmes and interventions are implemented. The variety of the existing standards and their different levels of exigencies can be beneficiary if policy makers apply them in combination -ie. choosing effective interventions and assuring that they are properly implemented and accepted, and in the appropriate cultural and geographic context. Other international organisations involved provide additional support such as certified training and online resources. Taken together, these initiatives might pave the way for setting up accreditation systems, in some countries, and help to assure that prevention providers take up such effective interventions and that prevention professionals are capable of implementing and willing to use it. All this requires, however, the political will to actually implement these standards since it implies revising, challenging and improving customary prevention systems with traditional approaches.

show abstract

“…El estudio de los problemas internalizados y externalizados en la etapa escolar se vuelve relevante principalmente por tres aspectos: una elevada prevalencia (Caraveo, 2007;OMS, 2005) que oscila entre el 3% y el 39% (Klein, Gonçalves & Silva, 2009); la continuidad, y las trayectorias de riesgo en el transcurso de la vida que afectan el comportamiento adaptativo (Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes 2010;Farrington & Welsh, 2007;Fergusson, Horwood & Boden, 2006;Murray, Irving, Farrington, Colman & Bloxsom, 2010;Rhule, 2005;Rutter, Kim-Cohen & Maughan, 2006;van Lier & Koot, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Los problemas internalizados y externalizados en la competencia académica de escolares.

Godínez

Maqueo

Santacana

2015

Acta. Colomb. Psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversos estudios destacan la elevada prevalencia de problemas internalizados y externalizados (PIyE) en la niñez, así como sus repercusiones en la competencia académica (CA). En México existe poca evidencia empírica al respecto, por lo que resulta relevante analizar esta relación para contar con indicadores que guíen el diseño de intervenciones. El objetivo del trabajo fue comparar los puntajes obtenidos en indicadores de CA en tres grupos de niños con niveles diferenciados de PIyE. Se trabajó con 314 niños con edades entre 8 y 12 años de primarias públicas, 51% niñas y 49% niños. Se aplicaron cuatro instrumentos: Cuestionario de Problemas Internalizados y Externalizados (CPIEN), Ficha Socio-demográfica para Niños, Escala de Inteligencia Coloreada Raven, y Pruebas Académicas. Se realizó un estudio transversal de comparación de grupos. Las pruebas se aplicaron de manera grupal en los salones de clases. El análisis estadístico se realizó mediante el programa SPSS v.20. Se conformaron tres grupos en función de los niveles de PIyE, y se compararon las puntuaciones que cada grupo obtuvo en los indicadores de CA por medio del MANOVA. Los datos mostraron efectos significativos en escritura en los grupos de problemas internalizados (PI), y en lectura en los grupos de problemas externalizados (PE). Se discuten los resultados de la influencia de los PIyE sobre la CA.

show abstract

Take Care to Do No Harm: Harmful Interventions for Youth Problem Behavior.

Cited by 68 publications

References 36 publications

Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm

Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm

International standards in prevention: how to influence prevention systems by policy interventions?

Los problemas internalizados y externalizados en la competencia académica de escolares.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About