Strong upvote! Thank you for making these important distinctions.
Here is an add-on from effectiveness research. Some studies show that approaches integrating different types of techniques might be more effective than approaches using just one type, such as just CBT or just inner parts work. This makes sense if it is true that different individuals at different times in different situations benefit most from different methods. These are exemplary meta-analyses:
* Integrative approaches even can help with very difficult problems and cases: such as Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and schema therapy can help people with Borderline Personality tendencies (Cristiea et. al, 2017); Mindfulness-based approaches can help with treatment-resistant depression (Chen, et. al, 2021). * Integrating different evidence-based methods might work a little better in coaching for improving wellbeing (Wang et. al, 2021). * Transdiagnostic (mostly also integrative) treatment approaches such as ACT or mindfulness-based treatments might work a little better for reducing depression than disorder-specific CBT (Newby, 2015)
Personal note: What might limit the effectiveness of IFS is the lack of evidence-based structure offered for separating the parts in a meaningful and helpful way. Both the approaches explained in this article do this well, drawing from what we already know from science about how the human mind works.
Some studies show that approaches integrating different types of techniques might be more effective than approaches using just one type
Yeah, a major reason why I like CFT and ST is that they are highly integrative therapies that use many different types of techniques and insights adapted from other therapies or disciplines (e.g., CBT, attachment theory, Gestalt therapy, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, meditation, etc.).
Strong upvote! Thank you for making these important distinctions.
Here is an add-on from effectiveness research.
Some studies show that approaches integrating different types of techniques might be more effective than approaches using just one type, such as just CBT or just inner parts work. This makes sense if it is true that different individuals at different times in different situations benefit most from different methods.
These are exemplary meta-analyses:
* Integrative approaches even can help with very difficult problems and cases: such as Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and schema therapy can help people with Borderline Personality tendencies (Cristiea et. al, 2017); Mindfulness-based approaches can help with treatment-resistant depression (Chen, et. al, 2021).
* Integrating different evidence-based methods might work a little better in coaching for improving wellbeing (Wang et. al, 2021).
* Transdiagnostic (mostly also integrative) treatment approaches such as ACT or mindfulness-based treatments might work a little better for reducing depression than disorder-specific CBT (Newby, 2015)
Personal note: What might limit the effectiveness of IFS is the lack of evidence-based structure offered for separating the parts in a meaningful and helpful way. Both the approaches explained in this article do this well, drawing from what we already know from science about how the human mind works.
Thanks, Inga!
Yeah, a major reason why I like CFT and ST is that they are highly integrative therapies that use many different types of techniques and insights adapted from other therapies or disciplines (e.g., CBT, attachment theory, Gestalt therapy, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, meditation, etc.).