Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Contents:

Information:

  • Access

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Authors' reply
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Authors' reply
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Authors' reply
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

We would like to thank Professor Burns for his thoughtful reply to our recent editorial and we are grateful for this opportunity to respond. To clarify: we would be happy to see more RCTs in psychiatry, but only as one form of evidence among others. Interestingly, the same work of Karl Popper referred to in the reply is drawn on by a leading proponent of realism to support such a position.Reference Pawson1

Professor Burns gives two examples of RCTs of complex interventions to demonstrate their value. Our view of the implications of these trials is, unsurprisingly, different. We find it hard to believe that assertive community treatment teams and community treatment orders are not effective for anyone, anywhere, or in any way. And although we agree with Professor Burns that the scarcity of trials evidence is problematic – in the case of community treatment orders, there have only been three RCTs with a total sample size of 749 patientsReference Kisely and Hall2 – we also believe that RCTs alone will never be the whole answer.

Rather than privileging a method designed to estimate singular ‘average treatment effects’ and whether a treatment does or does not ‘work’, we would argue that a more sensible way to proceed is to develop approaches intrinsically attuned to detecting variation and difference and, most importantly, understanding what gives rise to it.Reference Subramanian, Kim and Christakis3 Where RCTs design out the effects of context, realist approaches see this as key.

We agree that other medical and healthcare specialities rely on evidence for the effectiveness of complex interventions. But what distinguishes mental health is the preponderance of interventions that require human agency, and factors such as therapeutic alliance, empathic communication and motivation: the relationship between community treatment orders and readmission rates is of a different complexity than that between chemotherapy and cancer remission, or between digitalis and cardiac function.

We acknowledge, and celebrate, the contribution of RCTs to evidence-based healthcare. But there remains a need for a plurality of methods. However astute and research-literate the clinician, RCTs select participants in ways that can make generalisation to real-world settings difficult. Realist approaches that help bridge the gap between the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of clinical outcomes can only be a good thing. And the more complex the intervention – and the more context dependent – the more important this is. For us, RCTs alone are unlikely to be sufficient.

Parity of esteem for psychiatry is undoubtedly worthwhile, but this does not mean we have to imitate other specialities; as so often in the past, we can lead the way instead. Primus inter pares.

1Pawson, R. The Science of Evaluation. Sage, 2013.
2Kisely, S, Hall, K. An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled evidence for the effectiveness of community treatment orders. Can J Psychiatry 2014; 59: 561–4.
3Subramanian, SV, Kim, R, Christakis, NA. The “average” treatment effect: a construct ripe for retirement. A commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Soc Sci Med 2018; 210: 7782.