A Critical Look at Mindfulness Therapy and Narrative Therapy
Introduction
Many individuals seek psychological therapies with the expectation of clear-cut solutions for their mental health challenges. This common perception often overlooks the complex and frequently debated scientific evidence underpinning these interventions. While some therapies boast robust empirical support, others face significant scrutiny regarding their efficacy and theoretical foundations. The landscape of psychological treatment is far from monolithic, characterized by a dynamic interplay of supporting and critical research.
Herein I will discuss how even widely adopted therapies which undergo rigorous scientific examination possess varying degrees of empirical validation. I'll focus on the critical interplay between a therapy's theoretical foundation, the strength of its evidence base (as graded by scientific hierarchies), and its alignment with the biopsychosocial model. To illustrate these dynamics, I will specifically examine two prominent approaches: mindfulness therapy and narrative therapy, presenting academic critiques for each.
Psychological Therapy: Why a Strong Theoretical Basis is Indispensable
The foundation of effective psychological practice lies in a robust theoretical framework. Counselling theory serves as the bedrock for professional work, providing an organized structure for understanding client concerns and guiding therapeutic interactions (Ginter et al., 2018). It acts as a "practical toolkit" for therapists, informing how they interpret a client's narrative, design interventions, and assess their efficacy (Ginter et al., 2018). This foundational role ensures that therapeutic actions are not arbitrary but are instead rooted in a coherent system of principles.
A strong theoretical basis provides a consistent framework for understanding, interpreting, and ultimately acting on a client's issues, thereby ensuring efficiency and effectiveness in the therapeutic process (Ginter et al., 2018). It helps explain why people think, feel, and behave in certain ways, offering a conceptual lens for empathy and attunement (Ginter et al., 2018). This framework acts as a "roadmap," guiding counsellors in navigating complex client narratives and devising fitting therapeutic strategies (Ginter et al., 2018). For novice counsellors, this theoretical guidance is particularly vital, offering direction and helping to ensure their effectiveness with clients. Experienced counsellors, too, benefit by integrating their self-knowledge with external theoretical frameworks (Ginter et al., 2018).
Beyond guiding practice, theory is an indispensable conduit for knowledge and research (Ginter et al., 2018). Without a theoretical underpinning, there would be no objective means to test subjective clinical observations, as theory provides the hypotheses and constructs necessary for scientific inquiry (Ginter et al., 2018; Horigian et al., 2017). It offers generalizations that clarify understanding and lead to the creation of new knowledge, which is then refined through empirical testing. The absence of theory would leave practitioners "driving blind" when attempting to help clients, making successful outcomes less likely, as effective action in counselling often needs to be immediate under unforeseen and complicated circumstances (Ginter et al., 2018). Theory allows practitioners to draw upon the accumulated experiences and insights of those who have come before them, providing a crucial historical and intellectual lineage for practice (Ginter et al., 2018).
However, the indispensable nature of theory also presents a potential pitfall: the risk of over-reliance. While theory is crucial, it should never overshadow the uniqueness of each client's individual experiences (Horigian et al., 2017). There is a danger in viewing clients solely through a theoretical lens, which can lead to categorizing them into predefined boxes rather than appreciating their distinct needs and contexts (Horigian et al., 2017). An integrative approach, drawing from multiple theories, can offer a more versatile toolbox and a nuanced understanding, allowing therapists the flexibility to adapt the therapeutic process to individual client circumstances rather than trying to fit the client into a rigid theoretical mold (Ginter et al., 2018; Horigian et al., 2017). This dynamic interplay between theoretical grounding and a flexible, person-centered approach is essential for truly effective therapy that respects the client's unique context and narrative.
Beyond Anecdotes and Therapist's Notes: Understanding Evidence Grades and the Biopsychosocial Model
A. The Hierarchy of Evidence: A Ladder of Reliability
To navigate the vast landscape of psychological research, it is crucial to understand the hierarchy of evidence. A hierarchy of evidence, also known as levels of evidence (LOEs), is a heuristic tool used to rank the relative strength and reliability of results obtained from experimental research, particularly prevalent in medical and allied health sciences (Stegenga, 2014). Its primary purpose is to assess the potential for systematic bias, with higher levels indicating greater freedom from such bias (Stegenga, 2014). While over 80 different hierarchies have been proposed, there is broad agreement on the relative strength of various study designs (Stegenga, 2014).
The strength of evidence is profoundly influenced by the study's design and the endpoints measured (Stegenga, 2014). For instance, a case report focusing on an individual patient provides less robust evidence than a blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). In clinical research, the strongest evidence for treatment efficacy primarily comes from meta-analyses of RCTs and systematic reviews, as these methods synthesize findings from multiple high-quality studies (Kavanagh, 2009; Stegenga, 2014).
Below these top-tier "filtered" or "secondary" information sources are primary studies such as individual RCTs, well-designed controlled trials without randomization, cohort studies (observing groups over time), and case-control studies (comparing groups with and without a condition) (Kavanagh, 2009; Stegenga, 2014). At the lower tiers are case series, case reports, and expert opinion based on clinical experience or committee reports, which are considered weaker due to a higher potential for bias and limited generalizability (Kavanagh, 2009; Stegenga, 2014).
The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system provides a widely used framework for rating the certainty of evidence, reflecting confidence in the estimated effect (Jüni et al., 2025; Kavanagh, 2009; Stegenga, 2014). This system categorizes evidence as High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low, guiding practitioners and policymakers in their decision-making.
Table 1: Hierarchy of Evidence (Example: GRADE System)
| Rating | Confidence in Estimated Effect | Description | Example Study Design |
| High | A lot of confidence that the true effect is similar or close to that of the estimated effect. | Strong evidence, unlikely to be substantially different from the true effect. | Systematic reviews of high-quality RCTs. |
| Moderate | Moderate confidence in the estimated effect. It is likely that the true effect is close to the estimated effect. However, it is possible that substantial differences may exist. | True effect is likely close, but substantial differences are possible. | Individual RCTs with some limitations, systematic reviews of cohort studies. |
| Low | Limited confidence in the estimated effect, which may be substantially different from the true effect. | True effect may be substantially different from the estimated effect. | Case-control studies, low-quality RCTs. |
| Very Low | Very little confidence in the estimated effect, which is likely to be substantially different from the true effect. | True effect is likely substantially different from the estimated effect. | Expert opinion without critical appraisal, case series. |
The table above visually represents how different types of research are ranked in terms of their methodological rigor and reliability. By presenting the GRADE system, which is widely adopted by international health organizations (Jüni et al., 2025), it provides a concrete example of how evidence is assessed in practice. This framework is crucial for understanding why certain types of evidence are considered stronger or weaker, thereby enhancing comprehension of the critiques of specific therapies discussed later.
B. The Biopsychosocial Lens: A Holistic View of Health
Complementing the hierarchy of evidence is the biopsychosocial model (BPSM), advocated by George L. Engel in 1977. This model posits that "illness and health are the result of an interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors" (Frank et al., 2021). It adopts a holistic viewpoint, emphasizing the interconnectedness of these dimensions and their mutual influence on an individual's health and illness, moving beyond the traditional biomedical model's focus on isolated disease processes (Borrell-Carrió et al., 2004; Frank et al., 2021).
The BPSM highlights that biological factors (e.g., genetic predispositions, physical health, brain function), psychological factors (e.g., emotions, thoughts, coping mechanisms, self-awareness), and social factors (e.g., relationships, cultural context, socioeconomic status, environmental influences) are intricately intertwined and dynamically shape one another (Borrell-Carrió et al., 2004; Frank et al., 2021). This comprehensive perspective views diseases not as isolated entities but as outcomes of complex connections among multiple dimensions (Frank et al., 2021).
C. Implications for Therapy Efficacy: Bridging Research and Reality
The biopsychosocial model has profound implications for understanding and evaluating therapy efficacy. It suggests that effective treatment must be comprehensive, integrating medical, psychological, and social interventions to address overall well-being (Borrell-Carrió et al., 2004). This approach leads to more personalized and effective healthcare, addressing multiple aspects of a patient's well-being (Borrell-Carrió et al., 2004; Frank et al., 2021).
However, traditional evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) often faces significant challenges when viewed through the BPSM lens. Many EBP studies, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), employ unrealistic exclusion criteria. Research samples often do not adequately represent minority populations or patients with co-occurring conditions, leading to EBP interventions being less effective for individuals with complex multimorbidities (Horigian et al., 2017). This approach, aligned with a medical model that attempts to isolate discrete psychological disease processes, creates an artificial research environment. The consequence is that these "easiest, most uncommonly uncomplicated cases" may show improvement, but the studies are "not generalizable" to the real world (Al-Jundi & Sakka, 2017; Ercikan & Roth, 2014; Horigian et al., 2017). This inherent limitation means that what works "ideally" under controlled conditions (efficacy) may not work "in the real world" of clinical practice (Horigian et al., 2017). This fundamental disconnect between research findings and clinical reality arises because the very design choices intended to ensure internal validity (controlling variables) inadvertently limit external validity (generalizability to real-world settings).
Furthermore, EBP is often challenging to apply to individuals because the evidence is based on a composite of multiple subjects, with limited attention to the impact of individual factors and influences on a patient's health (Horigian et al., 2017). EBP tends to focus on ameliorating isolated symptoms or disorders, whereas many individuals seek psychotherapy for broader goals, such as coping more effectively with life's challenges or finding a greater sense of meaning (Horigian et al., 2017). This can lead to a mismatch between the narrow outcomes measured in research and the holistic needs of patients. A rigid application of EBP also risks disregarding the invaluable clinical experience of practitioners, potentially resulting in management-driven rather than patient-centered psychotherapy (Horigian et al., 2017).
The biopsychosocial model offers a crucial framework for understanding why treatments effective in isolated, controlled studies might fail in complex, real-world scenarios. By explicitly addressing the "spectrum of symptoms, personality characteristics, and social factors" that characterize real-world patients (Borrell-Carrió et al., 2004; Frank et al., 2021), the BPSM provides a conceptual lens for developing interventions that are not just biologically or psychologically sound, but also socially and contextually informed. This perspective suggests that true "effectiveness" in health psychology requires interventions that consider the intricate interplay of all three dimensions. Therefore, the BPSM is not merely a descriptive model of health, but a prescriptive framework for developing and evaluating therapies that are genuinely effective in diverse, real-world settings, thereby offering a pathway to bridge the gap between research efficacy and clinical effectiveness.
Mindfulness Therapy: Unpacking the Promises and the Perils
Overview of Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs)
Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs), such as Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), integrate elements of cognitive therapy with mindfulness practices (Zhang et al., 2025). Their core theoretical underpinning involves cultivating a non-judgmental awareness of the present moment, often drawing from secular adaptations of Buddhist traditions (Zhang et al., 2025). MBCT, for instance, was initially designed to prevent relapses in recurrent depression by teaching skills to recognize and counteract maladaptive thought patterns like rumination (Zhang et al., 2025). Empirical research indicates that MBCT can reduce depression recurrence by over 50% compared to conventional medical treatment and directly alleviate depressive symptoms during their onset (Zhang et al., 2025). MBIs are also shown to improve emotional regulation, enhance cognitive functions, reduce stress, and have broad applicability across diverse populations and conditions, including anxiety disorders, substance abuse, and chronic pain (Felver et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2025).
Critical Perspectives on Mindfulness Therapy
Despite the enthusiasm and widespread adoption of MBIs, a growing body of academic literature presents significant criticisms regarding their efficacy and the rigor of their evidence base.
1. Imprecision in Definition and Measurement:
Critics argue that the definition of mindfulness is vague and imprecise, making rigorous scientific investigation challenging (Van Dam et al., 2018). The term is sometimes applied broadly to activities as diverse as coloring, and mindfulness is often a component of larger therapeutic approaches like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Van Dam et al., 2018). This broad and imprecise application makes it difficult for researchers to isolate the specific benefits attributable to the mindfulness component itself, hindering meaningful comparisons between studies and leading to questions about what is truly being measured (Van Dam et al., 2018).
2. Lack of Superiority Over Active Control Groups:
While MBIs frequently demonstrate small but significant benefits over passive control groups (e.g., waiting lists), these benefits often disappear when compared to active control groups (e.g., other relaxation techniques, physical exercise, or different therapeutic interventions) (Van Dam et al., 2018). This suggests that the observed improvements might be attributable to non-specific factors, such as the general act of intervention or relaxation, rather than anything unique or specific to mindfulness practice (Van Dam et al., 2018). Comprehensive meta-analyses have shown only moderate improvements in depression, anxiety, and pain, and very small improvements in stress reduction and quality of life, with no evidence of effect on other variables like positive mood or sleep, when compared to other interventions (Van Dam et al., 2018).
3. Unreported Adverse Effects and Individual Differences:
A significant concern raised by scholars is that adverse effects of mindfulness are often not systematically reported in the literature (Van Dam et al., 2018). Documented examples of negative experiences following mindfulness practice include panic attacks, traumatic flashbacks, depersonalization, disorientation, and even psychosis (Van Dam et al., 2018). While these undesirable consequences appear to be rare, the poor documentation makes it impossible to accurately estimate their true prevalence (Van Dam et al., 2018). Furthermore, research indicates that individuals react differently to meditation techniques, and not always positively. For example, some studies suggest that MBCT might increase the likelihood of relapse in individuals with fewer prior depressive episodes, while being more beneficial for those with a personal history of childhood trauma (Van Dam et al., 2018). The absence of comprehensive adverse event reporting creates a distorted picture of mindfulness's safety profile, potentially exposing vulnerable individuals to unforeseen harms. This is a critical ethical failure in the scientific and clinical dissemination of MBIs, especially given their widespread adoption.
4. Methodological Shortcomings and "White Hat Bias":
The scientific literature on mindfulness is criticized for a lack of conceptual and methodological self-criticism, insufficient or inconclusive evidence, heterogeneity within patient categories, risk of publication bias, and limited long-term follow-up in several studies (Felver et al., 2015; Van Dam et al., 2018). There is also a concern about "white hat bias," a phenomenon where researchers may unconsciously distort information or spin essentially negative results into enthusiasm for future research, driven by a belief in the inherent goodness or "righteousness" of mindfulness (Van Dam et al., 2018). This bias can lead to sensationalized reporting, such as claims that mindfulness is "as effective as drugs for treating depression," even when the study's primary hypothesis (that MBCT would be superior to antidepressants) has failed (Van Dam et al., 2018). This suggests that factors beyond rigorous scientific evidence, such as marketability and a cultural desire for individual solutions to systemic problems, are driving the widespread adoption of mindfulness. The rapid integration into mainstream settings, like workplaces and schools, appears to have outpaced robust, unbiased empirical validation, raising ethical questions about informed consent and the potential for harm from poorly understood interventions (Van Dam et al., 2018).
Table 2: Key Criticisms of Mindfulness Therapy and Supporting Academic Papers
| Criticism | Description | Supporting Academic Paper (Author, Year) |
| Imprecision in Definition/Measurement | Vague and broad definition, making comparisons difficult and obscuring specific causal components. | Van Dam et al. (2018) |
| Lack of Superiority over Active Control | Benefits often disappear when compared to other active interventions, suggesting non-specific effects. | Van Dam et al. (2018) |
| Unreported Side Effects/Individual Differences | Adverse effects (e.g., panic attacks, psychosis) are not systematically documented, and efficacy varies greatly among individuals. | Van Dam et al. (2018) |
| Methodological Shortcomings/Bias | Literature plagued by methodological flaws (e.g., publication bias, limited follow-up) and "white hat bias" leading to over-enthusiastic reporting. | Felver et al. (2015); Van Dam et al. (2018) |
This table provides a clear and concise summary of the main criticisms against mindfulness therapy, directly linking each critique to specific academic sources. This structured presentation allows readers to quickly grasp the key points of contention and see the scholarly backing for each, enhancing the report's authoritative and evidence-based tone.
Narrative Therapy: Re-Authoring Lives, Re-Examining the Evidence
Overview of Narrative Therapy
Narrative therapy, developed by Michael White and David Epston in the early 1990s (White & Epston, 1990), emphasizes the profound importance of personal stories in shaping individuals' identities and experiences (Uzun & LeBlanc, 2017). This therapeutic approach draws from various influences, including systemic family therapy, anthropology, and literary theories (Uzun & LeBlanc, 2017). A central principle of narrative therapy is "externalization," where clients are guided to view their problems as separate from their identity, allowing for a re-framing of how they perceive and engage with life's challenges (Spencer & Petersen, 2020; Uzun & LeBlanc, 2017). The therapist's role in this process is "decentered," acting as a guide to facilitate "externalizing conversations" and "re-authoring" to help clients develop new, more empowering life stories that highlight their strengths, resilience, and values (Denborough, 2014; Spencer & Petersen, 2020).
Narrative therapy is a versatile approach, applied to a diverse range of issues and populations. These include individuals struggling with mental health issues, trauma (e.g., PTSD in refugees), developmental challenges (e.g., autism spectrum disorders, ADHD), substance abuse, and major depressive disorder (Spencer & Petersen, 2020). It can be implemented in both individual and group settings, and has been adapted for use within various cultural contexts (Spencer & Petersen, 2020).
Critical Perspectives on Narrative Therapy
Despite its widespread acceptance in fields like family therapy and social work, narrative therapy faces several significant criticisms, particularly concerning its evidence base and methodological underpinnings.
1. Lack of Empirical Evidence and Difficulty with Quantitative Measurement:
Narrative therapy has been widely criticized for its limited scientific support and a general lack of quantitative empirical evidence (Aas et al., 2020; Cashin et al., 2022). Its emphasis on qualitative improvement, such as fostering more positive perspectives on past experiences and future approaches, makes objective quantitative measurement inherently challenging (Cashin et al., 2022). This is not merely a gap in research but stems from a deeper philosophical stance: some narrative therapists are actively opposed to quantitative research methods, prioritizing the client's subjective "truth and their version of reality" over diagnostic classifications and measurable outcomes (Aas et al., 2020). This fundamental epistemological conflict between narrative therapy's constructivist worldview and the positivist assumptions of much of evidence-based practice creates a systemic barrier to its widespread adoption in public healthcare settings that increasingly demand measurable, "evidence-based" outcomes (Aas et al., 2020). While some studies do attempt to quantify outcomes, they are often limited in scope, employing naturalistic designs without control groups, small sample sizes, or lacking long-term follow-up (Aas et al., 2020).
2. Potential for Therapist Bias and Imposition of Language:
A major criticism leveled against narrative therapy is the potential for therapist bias. In this therapeutic approach, the therapist acts as a "co-discoverer" and assists in shaping an individual's perspective (Hayward, 2003). Since narrative therapy posits no absolute truths, only socially sanctioned points of view, there is a concern that the therapist's personal values and morals might inadvertently influence the client in a way that could be destructive or hinder the healing process, or even prioritize the therapist's perspective over established cultural narratives (Hayward, 2003). Critics also argue that narrative therapy can seek to "impose its own language" and be perceived as "psychological rhetorical overkill" (Hayward, 2003). This raises concerns about inadvertently shaming clients or "linguistically colonizing personal epistemologies," where the therapy's specific linguistic framework subtly guides or shapes the client's narrative in ways that may not be entirely self-generated or culturally congruent (Hayward, 2003). This highlights a critical tension between the therapist's influence and the client's agency, even in a therapy designed to be client-centered.
3. Neglect of Family Interactions and Poorly Defined Therapeutic Mechanisms:
Narrative therapy has been criticized for isolating itself from and shunning dialogue with other systemic family therapies (Hayward, 2003). It is also accused of "deserting the family" and neglecting patterns of family interactions, as family relationships are only privileged within the therapy when they hold significant meaning to the individual, not inherently (Hayward, 2003; Minuchin, 1998). This can be particularly problematic in cultures where the family unit is treated as a primary entity, such as Chinese culture, where a focus solely on the individual's narrative may obscure crucial family dynamics and cultural inequities (Hayward, 2003). Furthermore, a common problem with constructive treatments like narrative therapy is that the "qualities that give therapeutic power to the story are poorly defined" (Doan, 1998; Hayward, 2003). The therapeutic mechanisms are often identified more with a general ethical, respectful, and non-blaming approach rather than with specific, clearly articulated technical tools, despite narrative therapists having a vast array of methods to choose from (Hayward, 2003).
Table 3: Key Criticisms of Narrative Therapy and Supporting Academic Papers
| Criticism | Description | Supporting Academic Paper (Author, Year) |
| Lack of Empirical Evidence | Limited scientific support, particularly quantitative findings, making efficacy difficult to measure and validate. | Aas et al. (2020); Cashin et al. (2022) |
| Potential for Therapist Bias/Imposition of Language | Risk of therapist's values influencing client's perspective and the therapy imposing its own terminology, potentially "colonizing" client epistemologies. | Hayward (2003) |
| Neglect of Family Interactions/Poorly Defined Mechanisms | Criticized for separating from other systemic family therapies and for not inherently privileging family interactions, and for lacking specific technical tools. | Doan (1998); Hayward (2003); Minuchin (1998) |
This table offers a clear, structured overview of the major criticisms against narrative therapy, directly linking them to the academic literature. It helps the reader quickly grasp the specific challenges and debates surrounding this therapeutic approach, enhancing the report's credibility and analytical depth.
Conclusion: Towards a Balanced and Patient-Centered Approach
The exploration of mindfulness and narrative therapies clearly demonstrates that the landscape of psychological treatment is not one of universal consensus or straightforward efficacy. Both therapies, despite their widespread use and reported benefits, face significant academic scrutiny regarding their theoretical precision, methodological rigor, and real-world effectiveness. This highlights the crucial need for consumers, practitioners, and policymakers to critically evaluate therapeutic claims, moving beyond anecdotal evidence or popular enthusiasm.
Effective psychological practice necessitates a strong theoretical foundation to guide understanding and intervention, preventing a "driving blind" approach to therapy. However, theoretical flexibility is key to avoid rigid categorization of complex human experiences. Robust grades of evidence, particularly from well-designed controlled trials and systematic reviews, are indispensable for establishing efficacy. Yet, the limitations of such research, especially regarding generalizability to diverse, complex patients, must be acknowledged. The biopsychosocial model offers a vital lens, reminding us that health and illness are products of intricate biological, psychological, and social interactions. This model challenges the reductionist tendencies of some evidence-based practices, advocating for comprehensive, individualized, and context-aware interventions that address the "whole patient."
The critiques of both mindfulness and narrative therapies underscore the continuous need for more rigorous, transparent, and diverse research methodologies. This includes better reporting of adverse effects, comparisons with active control groups, and studies that reflect the complexity of real-world clinical populations. Ultimately, effective psychological care requires a balanced approach that values empirical evidence, respects theoretical integrity, and is deeply rooted in a holistic, patient-centered understanding. It means moving beyond a one-size-fits-all mentality towards truly individualized treatment plans that align with the unique biopsychosocial profile and preferences of each client.
References
Aas, M., Ulvenes, P. G., & Røssberg, J. I. (2020). Narrative Family Therapy for Children and Adolescents with Psychiatric Disorders: A Pilot Study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 570383.
Al-Jundi, A., & Sakka, S. (2017). Internal and external validity. Journal of Orthodontic Science, 6(4), 105–107.
Borrell-Carrió, F., Suchman, A. L., & Epstein, R. M. (2004). The Biopsychosocial Model 25 Years Later: Principles, Practice, and Scientific Inquiry. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(6), 576–582.
Cashin, A., et al. (2022). A systematic review of narrative therapy treatment outcomes for eating disorders—bridging the divide between practice-based evidence and evidence-based practice. BMC Psychiatry, 22(1), 1–15.
Denborough, D. (2014). Retelling the stories of our lives: Everyday narrative practice with young people and their families. Dulwich Centre Publications.
Doan, R. E. (1998). The King Is Dead; Long Live the King: Narrative Therapy and Practicing What We Preach. Journal of Family Therapy, 20(1), 1–16.
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2014). Limits of Generalizing in Education Research: Why Criteria for Research Generalization Should Include Population Heterogeneity and Uses of Knowledge Claims. Teachers College Record, 116(5).
Felver, J. C., Celis-de Hoyos, C. E., Tezanos, K. M., & Singh, N. N. (2015). A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Youth in School Settings. Mindfulness, 6(2), 346–358.
Frank, R. G., & Frank, J. B. (2021). The Biopsychosocial Model 40 Years On. In The Biopsychosocial Model 40 Years On. Oxford University Press.
Ginter, E. J., Roysircar, G., & Gerstein, L. H. (2018). Theories and Applications of Counseling and Psychotherapy: Relevance Across Cultures and Settings. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Hayward, M. (2003). Critiques of Narrative Therapy: A Personal Response. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 24(4), 213–219.
Horigian, V. E., Robbins, M. S., Dominguez, L., Ucha, J., & Rosa, C. L. (2017). Evidence-Based Psychotherapy: Advantages and Challenges. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 40(3), 395–407.
Jüni, P., Antoniou, S., Arbelo, E., Buccheri, S., Cikes, M., da Costa, B. R., Fauchier, L., Gale, C. P., Halvorsen, S., & James, S. (2025). 2024 Revision of the level of evidence grading system for ESC clinical practice guideline recommendations I: therapy and prevention. European Heart Journal.
Kavanagh, B. P. (2009). The GRADE System for Rating Clinical Guidelines. PLoS Medicine, 6(9), e1000094.
Minuchin, S. (1998). Where is the Family in Family Therapy? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(4), 397–402.
Spencer, T. D., & Petersen, D. B. (2020). Narrative Intervention: Principles to Practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(4), 1081–1096.
Stegenga, J. (2014). Care and Cure: An Introduction to Philosophy of Medicine. University of Chicago Press.
Uzun, B., & LeBlanc, S. (2017). Narrative Theoretical Framework. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, A. A., Olendzki, A.,... & Meyer, D. E. (2018). Has the science of mindfulness lost its mind?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 244–248.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton & Company.
Zhang, D., Lee, E. K. P., Mak, E. C. W., Ho, C. Y., & Wong, S. Y. S. (2025). Mindfulness-based interventions: an overall review. British Medical Bulletin, 138(1), 41–52.
Comments
Post a Comment