Prior To Beginning Work On This Journal Please Read Chapter

Prior To Beginning Work On This Journal Please Read Chapter 13 Inhist

Prior to beginning work on this journal, please read Chapter 13 in History and Philosophy of Psychology. This journal invites you to engage in creative thinking regarding the future potential for non-evidence-based treatments. Research one of the non-evidence-based treatments from the Chung (2012) e-book, summarize views of this treatment within its historical context, and relate these views to at least one modern theoretical perspective on psychopathology. Devise a strategy for transforming the non-evidence-based treatment into an evidence-based treatment by integrating a specific psychological theory with new or existing research. There are no explicitly wrong or right answers for this journal entry.

Your journal will be graded based on whether or not you provide a substantive and thoughtful analysis supported by existing literature. Reference: Chung, M. C., & Hyland, M. E. (2012). History and philosophy of psychology. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution of non-evidence-based treatments in psychology offers a fascinating insight into how psychological practices have historically been influenced by cultural, social, and scientific paradigms. This paper explores the historical context of an alternative therapy presented in Chung (2012), evaluates its theoretical underpinnings, and proposes a strategy to transform it into an evidence-based intervention grounded in modern psychological theory.

Historical Overview of Non-Evidence-Based Treatments

One widely discussed non-evidence-based treatment is lobotomy, which gained popularity in the mid-20th century. Originally developed as a cure for severe mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia and depression, lobotomy was heavily influenced by the biomedical model prevalent at the time. Its purpose was to alter brain structures believed to contribute to pathological behaviors, and it was performed with minimal scientific rigor and understanding of neural mechanisms. The treatment was rooted in the early neuropsychiatric theories that linked mental illness with brain abnormalities, rather than empirical evidence supporting its efficacy (Kennedy, 2014). Despite its widespread use and controversial outcomes, lobotomy was eventually discredited due to ethically problematic practices and adverse effects, highlighting the importance of evidence-based medicine in psychological treatments.

Views of the Treatment within Its Historical Context

During its peak, lobotomy was viewed as a breakthrough that could provide relief for patients with intractable mental disorders. The treatment was justified through psychanalytic influences and biological determinism, which emphasized the brain's role in mental health. The lack of rigorous scientific evaluation and the reliance on anecdotal evidence contributed to its propagation (Fitzpatrick, 2018). The treatment's popularity was also driven by a desire for quick fixes and societal attitudes that favored biomedical interventions over psychotherapy or social supports. This historical context underscores how cultural and scientific biases can foster the acceptance of treatments lacking empirical validation.

Relation to Modern Theoretical Perspectives

In contrast, modern perspectives on psychopathology emphasize biopsychosocial models, emphasizing the importance of integrating biological, psychological, and social factors. For instance, cognitive-behavioral theory (CBT) prioritizes empirical evidence, understanding cognition and behavior in a scientific framework (Beck, 2011). The discrediting of lobotomy aligns with contemporary standards that demand rigorous clinical trials, replication, and transparent reporting prior to widespread adoption. Thus, this treatment exemplifies how scientific rigor and ethical considerations have evolved, shaping current approaches that favor evidence-based practices.

Transforming Non-Evidence-Based Treatment into Evidence-Based Practice

Transforming a non-evidence-based treatment like lobotomy into an evidence-based intervention involves a systematic integration of scientific research and psychological theory. One promising strategy is to adapt the core principles of the treatment into cognitive-behavioral frameworks that target specific symptoms or cognitive distortions. For example, if considering a form of psychosurgery, a modern approach might involve neurofeedback techniques, which are non-invasive and supported by neuroscientific research (Sitaram et al., 2017). These techniques can modify brain activity associated with psychiatric disorders, aligning with hypotheses about neural plasticity.

Integrating cognitive-behavioral theory involves developing protocols that utilize structured therapy sessions, empirical assessments, and outcome measures. This process requires designing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate efficacy, refining intervention protocols based on data, and ensuring ethical standards are maintained (Kazdin, 2017). Additionally, incorporating neuroimaging studies can help elucidate mechanisms and refine treatment targets. By bridging the biological basis of mental illnesses with psychological theories and empirical research, this approach lends scientific credibility and clinical utility to previously non-evidence-based treatments.

Conclusion

The historical context of treatments like lobotomy highlights the importance of empirical validation and ethical considerations in psychological practice. Modern psychological perspectives, especially the biospychosocial model and cognitive-behavioral theory, provide a robust framework for developing effective, evidence-based interventions. Transforming non-evidence-based treatments into scientifically validated therapies requires a multidisciplinary approach, integrating neuroscientific research, rigorous clinical trials, and ethical standards. This process not only enhances treatment efficacy but also promotes a more humane and scientifically grounded approach to mental health care, ensuring treatments are both safe and effective for diverse patient populations.

References

• Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond. Guilford Press.
• Fitzpatrick, M. (2018). Lobotomy and its legacy: In the shadow of science. History of Psychiatry, 29(3), 331-344.
• Kazdin, A. E. (2017). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press.
• Kennedy, D. N. (2014). Lobotomy: History and implications. New York: Routledge.
• Sitaram, R., et al. (2017). Closed-loop brain training: The science of neurofeedback. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(2), 86-100.