Randomized controlled trials confirm the efficacy of psychological interventions and medications: Commentary on Jobes and Barnett (2025).

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Freddy A Paniagua
{"title":"Randomized controlled trials confirm the efficacy of psychological interventions and medications: Commentary on Jobes and Barnett (2025).","authors":"Freddy A Paniagua","doi":"10.1037/amp0001596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Jobes and Barnett (see record 2024-78987-001) decided to emphasize and recommend only psychological interventions (e.g., dialectical behavior therapy) in the clinical treatment for suicidal risk and behavior. Such interventions have been, in fact, proven effective in research emphasizing randomized controlled trials. Jobes and Barnett, however, decided not to include a section dealing with medications because they concluded that, with some exceptions (e.g., clozapine), the majority of medications have \"little to no evidence\" in randomized controlled trials. The article by Jobes and Barnett not only appears to be unintentionally biased in favor of only recommending psychological interventions, but it also appears clinically unsound to advise clinicians to de-emphasize medications in the present clinical context. The core message in the article (emphasis on psychological interventions, but not on medications) does not appear in accord with the American Psychological Association RxP Designation Committee with the mission to review and approve programs in prescriptive authority for psychologists nor with the wide range of medications with evidenced clinical benefits derived from randomized controlled trials funded by the National Institutes of Health and approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48468,"journal":{"name":"American Psychologist","volume":"81 5","pages":"716-717"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Psychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001596","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Jobes and Barnett (see record 2024-78987-001) decided to emphasize and recommend only psychological interventions (e.g., dialectical behavior therapy) in the clinical treatment for suicidal risk and behavior. Such interventions have been, in fact, proven effective in research emphasizing randomized controlled trials. Jobes and Barnett, however, decided not to include a section dealing with medications because they concluded that, with some exceptions (e.g., clozapine), the majority of medications have "little to no evidence" in randomized controlled trials. The article by Jobes and Barnett not only appears to be unintentionally biased in favor of only recommending psychological interventions, but it also appears clinically unsound to advise clinicians to de-emphasize medications in the present clinical context. The core message in the article (emphasis on psychological interventions, but not on medications) does not appear in accord with the American Psychological Association RxP Designation Committee with the mission to review and approve programs in prescriptive authority for psychologists nor with the wide range of medications with evidenced clinical benefits derived from randomized controlled trials funded by the National Institutes of Health and approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

随机对照试验证实了心理干预和药物治疗的有效性:评论Jobes和Barnett(2025)。
Jobes和Barnett(见记录2024-78987-001)决定在自杀风险和行为的临床治疗中只强调和推荐心理干预(如辩证行为疗法)。事实上,这些干预措施在强调随机对照试验的研究中已被证明是有效的。然而,Jobes和Barnett决定不包括关于药物的部分,因为他们得出结论,除了一些例外(例如氯氮平),大多数药物在随机对照试验中“几乎没有证据”。Jobes和Barnett的文章不仅无意中偏向于只推荐心理干预,而且在临床上,建议临床医生在目前的临床环境中不强调药物治疗也是不合理的。这篇文章的核心信息(强调心理干预,但不包括药物)并不符合美国心理学协会RxP指定委员会的规定,该委员会的任务是审查和批准心理学家的规定权威项目,也不符合由美国国立卫生研究院资助并由美国食品和药物管理局批准上市的随机对照试验所证明的临床疗效的广泛药物。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2026 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American Psychologist
American Psychologist PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
18.50
自引率
1.20%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: Established in 1946, American Psychologist® is the flagship peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the American Psychological Association. It publishes high-impact papers of broad interest, including empirical reports, meta-analyses, and scholarly reviews, covering psychological science, practice, education, and policy. Articles often address issues of national and international significance within the field of psychology and its relationship to society. Published in an accessible style, contributions in American Psychologist are designed to be understood by both psychologists and the general public.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书