Talk:Group psychotherapy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For what it's worth, I've heard group therapy was invented by J H Pratt. Trekphiler 05:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] professional opinions of group therapy
Psychopharm and CBT seem much more accessible than Group Therapy. The mental health industry has grown many different approaches to treatment, a fair number of which are rather unscientific in their conception (psychoanalysis, gestalt therapy, etc.). I would count group therapy in this category. That's not to say it's ineffective. Has the move toward evidence based practice and biological psychiatry lead to marginalization of this technique? Because of its cost effectiveness, could there be subconscious opposition to its use in favor of one-on-one counseling? Care providers seem to have the largest voice in decision making and resource allocation regarding care provision.
[edit] Re-structuring this page
This page needs a lot of work. I've done a few minor edits and added some content over the last few days but I think it needs a re-structure. I would suggest headings such as
- A definition of group psychotherapy
- Information for patients / users (incorporeting much of the current first paragraph)(also where it is offered and how to access it)
- History of group psychotherapy
- Therapeutic principles (reference to e.g.Yalom's therapeutic factors, and more on the role of the therapist; also unpacking the therapeutic principles of some other models)
- Settings (discuss group therapy e.g. in out-patient & in-patient settings, therapeutic communities, and as a component of other models of therapy
- Research on efficacy ( - or effectiveness? ...outcome research)
- Specialised forms (including the current second sentence with the reference to TaKeTiNa Rhythm Process)
Comments? --Anonymaus (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Big edit
I've done a substantial restructuring of this page, adding 'Therapeutic principles', 'Settings', 'Research on effectiveness', and re-wording the introduction. Also lots more references. Out of respect for previous contributors I have preserved practically all of the pre-existing text, much of it in 'Information for patients/ users'. 'See also' has been edited to remove redundancy (links already in the text). It isn't perfect, there is room for more detail on theory but I do think it is an improvement. Can we remove the 'Stub' label, I wonder? --Anonymaus (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)