Eric Laurent, psychoanalyst, on ‘evidence-based practice’:
“[O]ur programme is exactly the reverse. In this context, it involves rejecting evaluation in a decisive way and explaining why evaluation is a completely erroneous perspective that we should not negotiate with. We have to denounce this perspective for what it is – a form of management of the developed societies invented by the anxiety of the discourse of the master which is at a loss and has been seduced by a false science. But it is a perspective that will not last. In the year 2030, it will not be the analytic societies but the evaluators who will not have any members…Evaluation will last for a while and then the return of the effects of the real will be such that this perspective will be shown for what it is: a dream, a scientistic dream that has appeared at the beginning of the 21st Century and which then, with the catastrophes produced, will manifest its clear incapacity to treat the real at stake.”
“Over the last decade, Sweden, like most Western countries, embraced the call for “evidence-based practice.” Socialstyrelsen, the country’s National Board of Health and Welfare, developed and disseminated a set of guidelines (“riktlinger”) for mental health practice. Topping the list of methods was, not surprisingly, cognitive-behavioral therapy.
The Swedish State took the list seriously, restricting payment for training of clinicians and treatment of clients to cognitive behavioral methods. In the last three years, a billion Swedish crowns were spent on training clinicians in CBT. Another billion was spent on providing CBT to people with diagnoses of depression and anxiety. No funding was provided for training or treatment in other methods.
The State’s motives were pure: use the best methods to decrease the number of people who become disabled as result of depression and anxiety. Like other countries, the percentage of people in Sweden who exit the work force and draw disability pensions has increased dramatically. As a result, costs skyrocketed. Even more troubling, far too many became permanently disabled.
The solution? Identify methods which have scientific support, or what some called, “evidence-based practice.” The result? Despite substantial evidence that all methods work equally well, CBT became the treatment of choice throughout the country. In point of fact, CBT became the only choice.
As noted above, Sweden is not alone in embracing practice guidelines. The U.K. and U.S. have charted similar paths, as have many professional organizations. Indeed, the American Psychological Association has now resurrected its plan to develop and disseminate a series of guidelines advocating specific treatments for specific disorders. Earlier efforts by Division 12 (“Clinical Psychology”) met with resistance from the general membership as well as scientists who pointed to the lack of evidence for differential effectiveness among treatment approaches.
Perhaps APA and other countries can learn from Sweden’s experience. The latest issue ofSocionomen, the official journal for Swedish social workers, reported the results of the government’s two billion Swedish crown investment in CBT. The widespread adoption of the method has had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of people disabled by depression and anxiety. Moreover, a significant number of people who were not disabled at the time they were treated with CBT became disabled, costing the government an additional one billion Swedish crowns. Finally, nearly a quarter of those who started treatment, dropped out, costing an additional 340 million!”