Since the British Psychological Society's Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) has published the new psychosis and schizophrenia report there has been mixed opinion from mental health professionals and service users as to its accuracy and usefulness.

Daniel Freeman, a professor of clinical psychology and Jason Freeman, a psychology writer (2014) posted a news article outlining the positive aspects the BPS report, such as the importance of including psychology in understanding psychosis. Such as, during 20th century clinical psychiatry, delusions and hallucinations were of diagnostic interest as symptoms of schizophrenia which could be treated by medication. However, the BPS report emphasises research suggesting that people’s life events and responses to them influence the experience of - rather than these merely being symptoms of a biological disorder. Freeman and Freeman indicate the usefulness of medication but suggest side effects can be profound and unwelcome. Therefore, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), and other talking therapies may be more useful.

Another blog from Keith Laws, a professor of cognitive neuropsychology, Alex Langford, a trainee psychiatrist, and Samei Huda, a consultant psychiatrist, presents a different opinion.  Law suggests that the benefits of CBT may have been overstated. He/she suggests that although CBT has shown positive outcome for some individuals, its effect may not be as consistently positive as claimed in the BPS report. Law also argues that CBT focuses on reducing symptoms, instead of reducing distress as indicated in the BPS report. Law argues that no research has compared the efficacy of CBT and anti-psychotic medication, so the report claiming CBT or medication is more effective is incorrect.

Langford further suggests the report reads as a step-by-step critique of medication. This report undermines the ability of medication to improve psychosis, when studies have found solid evidence for clinical improvement. Langford states medication should not be the only treatment to be offered, but that the BPS report may misrepresent facts in an unhelpful way.

Huda suggests that the number of psychologists involved in creating the report means that the report is clearly based on a psychological model for psychosis. Thus it may fail to represent models such as a biomedical understanding of psychosis, which should be seen as complementary. Huda suggested that the report would have been stronger if it acknowledged its weaknesses, and not attempted to explain all psychosis phenomenon via the psychological model.

This blog offers a critical overview of the BPS report, and welcomes comment. Click here to read the article and offer your view on the topic.

Back to news list