Just looked at the conference program that I will be attending, remotely, later this week. What struck me is that the overwhelming majority of presenters are University-based, with a few non-university-based presenters, running skills classes. But I guess only the tip-of-the iceberg of attendees will be University-based. I am sure that this isn’t a deliberate ploy on the part of Conference Organisers, But it is an issue that has not been recognised since the inception of BABCP, much less addressed.
Lived experience seems not much in evidence. The danger is that suggested interventions will be eminence-based rather than evidence-based. With University staff often charismatic. The only protection for most attendees is to use the mnemonic PICOT, in gauging the relevance of what is presented.
Asking the basic question ‘what proportion of people with the said difficulty/disorder, are back to their old selves following this intervention and for how long?’ Presenters may well fudge their response.
Oftentimes I have found I’ve picked up something really useful at a Conference by attending something that is off my ‘beaten track’. Hopefully this will happen again.
Years ago there was the CBT Cafe as a CBT discussion group, but this fell into dis-use – I think because of the pre-eminence of some contributors. I was disappointed that it has not been resurrected in some form on the new BABCP website. But I can see that the task of moderation is onerous, nevertheless there is danger for any Organisation if there is not open discussion.
Dr Mike Scott