Glad to see a therapy incorporating a motivational module. Especially since we know it improves the effect of the therapy (Marker & Norton, 2018). Seeing how it improves the effect size, wouldn't that mean that UP has a smaller effect without it? And when it has been found that UP has comparable effects to CBT isnät it an unfair comparison because UP has a motivational aspect by default while CBT does not? Doing the math here (CBT + no motivational module = UP + (including) motivational module ---> CBT + no motivational module > UP + no motivational module) would suggest that the active components of CBT has a better effect than the active components in UP. Or is this reasoning wrong? Marker, I., & Norton, P. J. (2018). The efficacy of incorporating motivational interviewing to cognitive behavior therapy for anxiety disorders: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 62, 1-10.

@SCP_Foundation_Spokesperson

4 жыл бұрын

You could look, fore exampe, at Aaron Fisher's work on algorithm-based treatment planning. He used the UP modules to create therapies tailored to individual needs. Some of the patients didn't receive module 1.

@DrDFRoss

2 ай бұрын

some thoughts: 1)Your logic seems impeccable in principle. Considering the results of previous dismantling studies, logic aside, there really is no substitute for a RCT for answering your question, I'm thinking. 2) The other consideration - for which client population? it would depend in part on the mean readiness for change of your particular clinical population in question. If they are already in action phase, MI isn't indicated and should not be used.