From the margins to the NICE guidelines: British clinical psychology and the development of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis, 1982–2002

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
D. Harper, Sebastian Townsend
{"title":"From the margins to the NICE guidelines: British clinical psychology and the development of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis, 1982–2002","authors":"D. Harper, Sebastian Townsend","doi":"10.1177/09526951211027738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although histories of cognitive behaviour therapy have begun to appear, their use with people with psychosis diagnoses has received relatively little attention. In this article, we elucidate the conditions of possibility for the emergence of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) in England between 1982 and 2002. We present an analysis of policy documents, research publications and books, participant observation, and interviews with a group of leading researchers and senior policy actors. Informed by Derksen and Beaulieu’s articulation of social technologies, we show how CBTp was developed and stabilised through the work of a variety of overlapping informal, academic, clinical, professional, and policy networks. The profession of clinical psychology played a key role in this development, successfully challenging the traditional ‘division of labour’ where psychologists focused on ‘neurosis’ and left ‘psychosis’ to psychiatry. Following Abbott's systems approach to professions, we identify a number of historical factors that created a jurisdictional vulnerability for psychiatry while strengthening the jurisdictional legitimacy of clinical psychology in providing psychological therapies to service users with psychosis diagnoses. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence played a significant role in adjudicating jurisdictional legitimacy, and its 2002 schizophrenia guidelines, recommending the use of psychological therapies, marked a radical departure from the psychiatric consensus. Our analysis may be of wider interest in its focus on social technologies in a context of jurisdictional contestation. We discuss the implications of our study for the field of mental health and for the relationship between clinical psychology and psychiatry.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of the Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951211027738","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although histories of cognitive behaviour therapy have begun to appear, their use with people with psychosis diagnoses has received relatively little attention. In this article, we elucidate the conditions of possibility for the emergence of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) in England between 1982 and 2002. We present an analysis of policy documents, research publications and books, participant observation, and interviews with a group of leading researchers and senior policy actors. Informed by Derksen and Beaulieu’s articulation of social technologies, we show how CBTp was developed and stabilised through the work of a variety of overlapping informal, academic, clinical, professional, and policy networks. The profession of clinical psychology played a key role in this development, successfully challenging the traditional ‘division of labour’ where psychologists focused on ‘neurosis’ and left ‘psychosis’ to psychiatry. Following Abbott's systems approach to professions, we identify a number of historical factors that created a jurisdictional vulnerability for psychiatry while strengthening the jurisdictional legitimacy of clinical psychology in providing psychological therapies to service users with psychosis diagnoses. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence played a significant role in adjudicating jurisdictional legitimacy, and its 2002 schizophrenia guidelines, recommending the use of psychological therapies, marked a radical departure from the psychiatric consensus. Our analysis may be of wider interest in its focus on social technologies in a context of jurisdictional contestation. We discuss the implications of our study for the field of mental health and for the relationship between clinical psychology and psychiatry.
从边缘到NICE指南:英国临床心理学和精神病认知行为疗法的发展,1982–2002
尽管认知行为疗法的历史已经开始出现,但它们在精神病患者中的应用相对较少受到关注。在这篇文章中,我们阐明了1982年至2002年间英国出现精神病认知行为疗法(CBTp)的可能性条件。我们分析了政策文件、研究出版物和书籍、参与者观察以及对一组主要研究人员和高级政策参与者的采访。根据Derksen和Beaulieu对社会技术的阐述,我们展示了CBTp是如何通过各种重叠的非正式、学术、临床、专业和政策网络的工作来发展和稳定的。临床心理学在这一发展中发挥了关键作用,成功地挑战了传统的“分工”,即心理学家专注于“神经症”,而将“精神病”留给精神病学。根据Abbott的职业系统方法,我们确定了一些历史因素,这些因素造成了精神病学的管辖漏洞,同时加强了临床心理学在为精神病诊断服务用户提供心理治疗方面的管辖合法性。美国国家健康与临床卓越研究所在裁决管辖合法性方面发挥了重要作用,其2002年精神分裂症指南建议使用心理疗法,标志着与精神病学共识的根本背离。我们的分析可能会引起更广泛的兴趣,因为它关注的是管辖权纠纷背景下的社会技术。我们讨论了我们的研究对心理健康领域以及临床心理学和精神病学之间关系的影响。
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
History of the Human Sciences
History of the Human Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: History of the Human Sciences aims to expand our understanding of the human world through a broad interdisciplinary approach. The journal will bring you critical articles from sociology, psychology, anthropology and politics, and link their interests with those of philosophy, literary criticism, art history, linguistics, psychoanalysis, aesthetics and law.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信