The status of hypnosis as an empirically validated clinical intervention: A preamble to the special issue

Abstract

In his introductory remarks to this Journal's special issue on the status of hypnosis as an empirically supported clinical intervention, the editor briefly describes the dawn of clinical hypnosis research, the logic of the natural science model, the importance of an inspired but tough-minded clinical science, and the auspicious confluence of practice and research purpose in this enterprise. The progenitor of this effort was indeed the Report of the Royal Commission coauthored by Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier, among others, more than 215 years ago--a report noted as one of the most important documents in the history of human reason. The ethos and logic of this special issue is grounded on the legacy of that document. Eschewing the conflicting mental health agendas of managed-care, government, patient rights, and professional guild interests, this special issue seeks to present a frank, evenhanded, informed, and dispassionate assessment of what science knows and does not know about clinical hypnosis.

Efficacy of Hypnotherapy in the Treatment of Eating Disorders

“…The results of Barga and Barabasz (in press) and Baker and Nash (1987) are consistent with this requirement although other Chambless and Hollon (1998) criteria may not be fully met. Nash (2000) notes that adoption of the Chambless and Hollon (1998) guidelines is not a problem in evaluating the efficacy of . .…”

“…Several authors have noted the fact that the Chambless and Hollon guidelines are problematic for hypnosis research, because hypnosis is most commonly used as an adjunct to other established psychotherapies (Lynn, Kirsch, Barabasz, Cardeña, & Patterson, 2000;Nash, 2000;Schoenberger, 2000). Nonetheless, this was the yardstick chosen to assess efficacy for the April 2000 Special Issue of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis on the Status of Hypnosis as an Empirically Validated Clinical Intervention (Nash).…”

Strategic Eclecticism in Hypnotherapy: Effectiveness Research Considerations

“…Certain principles from research on clinical effectiveness are thus presumed to guide successful treatment, explicitly or intuitively. While efforts to demonstrate more traditional efficacy referenced empirical status have been established in clinical hypnosis (Kirsch et al, 1999), this "status" is not without controversy (Nash 2000). Amundson, Alladin and Gil (2003) in fact suggest, "If EST (empirically-supported therapy) and efficacy-focused research becomes the exclusive fulcrum for treatment judgment, it is possible hypnosis may be at risk as clinical practice" (p. 13).…”

“…Although strategic eclecticism arises from clinical research regarding what works better with certain kinds of problems, that is, efficacy-focused practice (Nash, 2000). It goes beyond this by finding ways to make empirically supported treatments (and, might we add, theoretical approaches) work even better through capitalizing on transtheoretical factors of successful therapy, that is effectiveness-focused practice (Amundson, Alladin, Gill., 2003).…”

How practitioners (and others) can make scientifically viable contributions to clinical-outcome research using the single-case time-series design

“…None of them fully satisfy the guidelines put forth by Chambless and Hollon (1998) and others (e.g., Robey et al, 1999). This is in sharp contrast to a rich and mature between-groups research literature that documents the utility of hypnosis across a number of settings and disorders, including smoking cessation (Ahijevych, Yerardi, & Nedilsky, 2000;Barber, 2001;Green & Lynn, 2000;Kinnunen, 2001), pain management (King, Nash, Spiegel, & Jobson, 2001 Wright & Drummond, 2001), pediatric medicine (Milling & Costantino, 2000), behavioral medicine (Pinnell, 2000), cognitive-behavioral therapies (Schoenberger, 2000), and others (Lynn, Kirsch, Barabasz, Cardefia, & Patterson, 2000;Nash, 2000Nash, ,2001. What is missing from this literature is the knowledge we gain from well-conducted, intensive time-series studies of the individual patient as treated in the real world of clinical practice.…”