Rehabilitation for torture survivors: Six evidence myths and their implications for future research.

Abstract

Whilst it is established that torture survivors suffer from complex, multiple and often severe and enduring physical, psychological, social, welfare and many other difficulties; and that rehabilitation as reparation should be holistic, interdisciplinary and specialist, majority of the research on rehabilitation focuses increasingly and almost exclusively on psychological interventions. Further, as-sumptions that this research provides evi-dence of which are effective psychological interventions may underpin and skew ser-vices funded and provided to torture sur-vivors. In this paper we challenge some of those assumptions, and discuss the concep-tual, theoretical, epistemological and meth-odological limitations of this research and implications for future research.