A Review of Current Trends, Debates and Intervention Models in Family Therapy Circa 2005

A Review of Current Trends, Debates and Intervention Models in Family Therapy Circa 2005

A Review of Current Trends, Debates and Intervention Models in Family Therapy Circa 2005

A Review of Current Trends, Debates and Intervention Models in Family Therapy Circa 2005s

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [3680]

Keefler, Joan, Lach, Lucyna M. et Duhamel, Fabie. 2005. «A Review of Current Trends, Debates and Intervention Models in Family Therapy Circa 2005 ». Intervention, no 123, p. 6-16.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
« The authors have chosen to review, in more detail, three intervention models of family therapy, functionnal family therapy, multidimensional family therapy and the illness beliefs model. » (p. 7)

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
« [Functionnal family therapy and multidimentsional family therapy] were chosen as they are the family-based models for the treatment of conduct disorders in adolescence that have been the subject of the most rigorous testing in recent years. They were among the three intervention programs that met the criteria for effectiveness in reducing criminal behaviour in youth chosen from 500 programs reviewed in 2001 by the Blueprints for Violence Prevention report in the United States (Mihalic, Irwin, Elliott, Fagan, & Hansen, 2001). The illness beliefs evaluated in Canada, was selected as representative of post-modern therapies and interventions for families living with the illness. » (p. 7)

Type de traitement des données :
Recension

3. Résumé


« Description, result findings and implications of practice for three models of family therapy: Multisystemic therapy, Functional family therapy, and illness beliefs model. [...] This review of the literature is designed to bring to the notice of clinicians practicing family therapy some of the curent trends, the latest empirical evidence and current debates in the field. In general, the field of relationship therapy has been noted for the paucity of research supporting the efficacy of its practice. This is not a surprising state of affairs since most (80%) MFT practitioners work in clinical rather than research settings (Sprenkle & Piercy, 2005). They appear to prefer clinical work to the painstaking, tedious and often isolating climate inhabited by the researcher. Research findings have little impact on practice and this gap between research and practice has been well documented (Guterman, 2002; Johnson, 2003; Pinsof & Wynne, 2000; Sexton, Alexander, & Mease, 2004). We hope that this review will help bridge this gap between the researcher and clinician, and help inform practice. » (p. 6)