Distinguishing scientific from pseudoscientific psychotherapies: Evaluating the role of theoretical plausibility, with a little help from Reverend Bayes

The role of implementation organizations in scaling evidence-based psychosocial interventions

BACKGROUND

To bring evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to individuals with behavioral health needs, psychosocial interventions must be delivered at scale. Despite an increasing effort to implement effective treatments in communities, most individuals with mental health and behavioral problems do not receive EBIs. We posit that organizations that commercialize EBIs play an important role in disseminating EBIs, particularly in the USA. The behavioral health and implementation industry is growing, bringing the implementation field to an important inflection point: how to scale interventions to improve access while maintaining EBI effectiveness and minimizing inequities in access to psychosocial intervention.

MAIN BODY

We offer a first-hand examination of five illustrative organizations specializing in EBI implementation: Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Incredible Years, Inc.; the PAXIS Institute; PracticeWise, LLC; and Triple P International. We use the Five Stages of Small Business Growth framework to organize themes. We discuss practical structures (e.g., corporate structures, intellectual property agreements, and business models) and considerations that arise when trying to scale EBIs including balancing fidelity and reach of the intervention. Business models consider who will pay for EBI implementation and allow organizations to scale EBIs.

CONCLUSION

We propose research questions to guide scaling: understanding the level of fidelity needed to maintain efficacy, optimizing training outcomes, and researching business models to enable organizations to scale EBIs.

Baseless Claims and Pseudoscience in Health and Wellness: A Call to Action for the Sports, Exercise, and Nutrition-Science Community

The global health and wellness industry has an estimated value of US$4 trillion. Profits derive from heath club memberships, exercise classes, diets, supplements, alternative 'therapies', and thousands of other products and services that are purported to improve health, recovery, and/or sports performance. The industry has expanded at an alarming rate, far outstripping the capacity of federal bodies to regulate the market and protect consumer interests. As a result, many products are sold on baseless or exaggerated claims, feigned scientific legitimacy, and questionable evidence of safety and efficacy. This article is a consciousness raiser. Herein, the implications of the mismatch between extraordinary health and performance claims and the unextraordinary scientific evidence are discussed. Specifically, we explore how pseudoscience and so-called 'quick fix' interventions undermine initiatives aimed at evoking long-term behavior change, impede the ongoing pursuit of sports performance, and lead to serious downstream consequences for clinical practice. Moreover, pseudoscience in health and wellness, if left unchecked and unchallenged, may have profound implications for the reputation of exercise science as a discipline. This is a call to action to unify exercise scientists around the world to more proactively challenge baseless claims and pseudoscience in the commercial health and wellness industry. Furthermore, we must shoulder the burden of ensuring that the next generation of exercise scientists are sufficiently skilled to distinguish science from pseudoscience, and information from mis- and disinformation. Better population health, sports performance, and the very reputation of the discipline may depend on it.

Acceptance of anomalous research findings: explaining treatment implausibility reduces belief in far-fetched results

Research findings are best understood by considering contextual factors such as treatment plausibility: how likely it is that a studied treatment or manipulation is effective, based on theory and data. If a treatment is implausible, then more evidence should be required before believing it has an effect. The current study assessed the extent to which the interpretation of a research finding is affected by treatment plausibility. Participant age varied from 18 to 82 (M = 27.4, SD = 9.4), and about half of the participants (53%) were college students. A total of 600 participants read a brief news article about an experiment with a new type of psychotherapy for weight loss. The current study used a 2 (treatment plausibility) × 3 (results type) between-subjects factorial design. Treatment plausibility had two levels: (1) a plausible cognitive behavioral therapy and (2) an implausible ”psychic reinforcement therapy” that was described as employing psychic messages to promote weight loss. The three levels of the results type factor varied how the study results were presented in the article: (1) standard results with no mention of treatment plausibility, (2) standard results followed by interpretive statements focused on treatment plausibility, and (3) no results—the study was described as still in progress. Participants rated their belief in the effectiveness of the therapy on a scale of 0 to 100% in 10% increments. When treatment plausibility was not discussed in the article, average ratings for the implausible therapy were relatively high (M = 63.1%, SD = 25.0, 95% CI% [58.2–68.1]) and similar to those for the plausible therapy (M = 69.2%, SD = 21.5, 95% CI% [65.0–73.5]). Ratings for the implausible treatment were moderately lower when the article explained why the results supporting it were questionable (M = 48.5%, SD = 26.6, 95% CI% [43.2–53.8]). The findings of the current study suggest that students and other members of the public may draw incorrect inferences from research partly because they do not appreciate the importance of treatment plausibility. This could be remedied, though not completely, by explicitly discussing the plausibility of the treatment based on theory and prior data.

Análisis de la presencia de pseudociencia en los catálogos de las bibliotecas públicas españolas

El presente artículo examina la presencia de libros que traten manifestaciones pseudocientíficas como tema principal en los catálogos de las bibliotecas públicas españolas, así como la posición que estas obras toman respecto a la pseudociencia. Se ha creado una base de datos para analizar las cifras tanto relativas como absolutas de textos en todos los catálogos autonómicos. Las cifras muestran un pequeño pero preocupante porcentaje del 0,15% de títulos abordando varias pseudociencias y señalan la astrología como la manifestación más presente en las bibliotecas. El estudio también muestra la amenaza que supone la homeopatía, dado que el número de obras tratando esta pseudoterapia supera en una ratio de 1 a 20 las obras referentes a la quimioterapia.