You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Psychotherapies
Original research
Symptom-specific effects of counselling for depression compared to cognitive–behavioural therapy
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 29 June 2023
    Real World Significance To Patients

    It is regrettable that BMJ Mental Health marks its transition from the Journal Evidence-based Mental Health with the publication of a paper that could, at best, be judged evidence-informed than evidence-based. The authors of the O’Driscoll et al (2023) paper make no acknowledgements of possible publication bias. But they work either for the NHS trusts or IAPT. Further NHS Trusts operate the IAPT services. They make no critical appraisal of their usage of IAPT’s chosen metric of recovery. There is no acknowledgement of works that cast serious doubts on the Services claimed 50% recovery rate, Capobianco et al (2023), Scott (2018).
    The O’Driscoll et al (2023) paper claims that CBT may be preferred to counselling for clients who have anxiety symptoms comorbid with depression. But the conclusions are built on sand in that:
    a) there can be no certainty that the subjects studied were depressed as there was no ‘gold standard’ diagnostic interview conducted. Instead reliance was placed on a psychometric test, PHQ-9
    b) there can be no certainty about comorbidity because of the absence of a diagnostic interview
    c) no fidelity checks were carried out to establish whether therapists were conducting CBT or counselling. Reliance was instead placed on therapists claims.
    d) no blind-raters were used to assess outcome
    e) there can be no certainty that the observed changes would not have happened anyway because of the absence of a credible attention co...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.