This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Systemic behavioural couples treatment for depression: T e Exeter model


Presenter: Hannah Sherbersky This was a presentation from the AccEPT Clinic, Mood Disorders


Centre, Exeter University, where a model of couple therapy integrating systemic and behavioural techniques in the treatment of depression has been created. I was looking forward to it because couple therapy has been part of my work, supplementing family therapy in a CAMHS. It was a great presentation; Hannah Sherbersky gave a clear and energetic overview of the couple-therapy literature and the Exeter model. She included videotape of her work – hurray! These days, there aren’t so many people who let us see what they do in this way. In a workshop, it’s good to hear what the presenter thinks, but the doing of therapy adds an extra dimension. Hannah outlined the dilemmas of operationalising two


approaches to therapy within the overall aim of extending a behavioural model to treat depression. The dual approach is also refl ected in the data collection, as both the ‘Becks depression inventory’ and SCORE are used. A central question addressed by Hannah was: is this actually a manual of therapy identifying techniques to help reduce symptoms after a diagnosis of depression? She showed it could be more than this by describing how essential ideas from each model are fundamental to the therapeutic activity of this developing project. Genograms, reframing and attachment narratives (circular


questions and reframing) are from the ‘systemic-empathic model’. Creating new circularities, enactments and homework tasks come out of the ‘systemic-behavioural model’. Closely described techniques are included in each of these categories. In therapy, these are combined to help create behavioural change over 6-12 sessions. Hannah, in the video clips, gave as examples the enactment of new types of communication.


I have enjoyed thinking about how diff erent this workshop


was compared to other sessions at the conference. One of the expectations in my trust is that therapists of diff erent modalities fi nd the ways in which they overlap and that can be integrated for the benefi t of explaining to commissioners what we do. This approach to couple therapy demonstrates integration and is a good example of how the boxes of ‘strong evidence-base’ and ‘addresses presenting problems’ can be ticked. It will be interesting to follow the centre’s future reports on the curative factors in what they do.


David Secrett, family therapist, Sussex Partnership NHS Trust; couple therapist – private practice, Brighton


Refl ections on research presentations


Facilitator: Mark Rivet Saturday morning in the High Peak


Suite followed Friday’s format of a series of 20-minute presentations, this time on the theme of “systemic evidence, outcomes audit and research”. When the “last but not least”


presentation turned out to be ‘not there’, Mark grabbed the giſt and gave the room an opportunity to digest the fi ve presentations together.


Context February 2012 Connections were made to Kathryn


Blackshaw’s call for family therapists to develop and present business plans. Has this strand of presentations offered a way to respond to this? John Burnham threw up the challenge;


“Have we not been here, done this, felt and known this before? How did the energy around research die off?” and then, catching the challenge, asked if this connects to the well-trodden theoretical cul-de-sac about the nature


of knowledge and therefore research; the concept of “not knowing” morphing into a lack of willingness to explain what we are doing – not as a cure all (or know all) but as potentially helpful? A sobering conclusion from


contributors is that the battle for service and theoretical credibility is not now a competition for professional equality, it is one for survival. Perhaps the intent or conclusions of research will never satisfy the rigorous


51


Workshop reports


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64