In the March letter titled ‘Extraordinary claims’, Ian Stevenson raised further issues concerning the Human Givens approach: ‘HG doesn’t even believe in the necessity for practitioners to have their own therapy.’

In his excellent comprehensive review of essential research findings into psychotherapy, Mick Cooper points out (p83) that: ‘One problem with this argument (that psychotherapists should have their own therapy) is that the research has yet to demonstrate a direct relationship between client outcomes and therapists’ engagement with their own personal therapy.’¹

In Human Givens training considerable emphasis is placed on the need for therapists to ensure their own psychological wellbeing, not through engagement in further therapy themselves, but in living meaningful and rounded lives that involve activities away from therapy. If a therapist is suffering from psychological distress they are recommended to seek help for their problems and would be recommended to be extremely careful in the sort of work engaged in, in these circumstances.

Is there any independent research to validate HG claims?
It is probably better to ask the question: Is there any independent research to validate any claims about psychological treatments? Scrutiny of the research literature used to inform NICE guidelines, for example, reveals that the greatest body of research used to shore up the various recommendations has come from the proponents of the various models themselves. CBT tends to be researched by CBT practitioners and trainers, DBT by DBT practitioners and trainers etc. This is not surprising, of course. However, it is also very sad that so many excellent practitioners of many different persuasions have in effect been disenfranchised because of lack of evidence of a particular kind.

Human Givens therapists have been making a serious attempt to evaluate their own effectiveness since 2005. This has led to the creation of a Practice Research Network in early 2007 (www.hgiprn.org). The HGIPRN publishes and regularly updates findings from practice on its website. Independent analysis of data has been carried out on the Luton Pilot project and a paper has been prepared for publication. Independent analysis is in the process of being done on the three years of national data collection now emerging since the HGIPRN commenced in April 2007. These researchers analysing the data are independent and have no allegiance to HG. But, as we all know, the process of the road to publication is a slow one. This is why we regularly update the website with the findings that are emerging.

Are some clients/patients being treated for trauma by people who have had a day’s course?
The answer to this question is a most definite ‘No’. Many of the attendees at MindFields training events are experienced practitioners with many years of clinical practice in a variety of disciplines in the field of mental health. Such people may have the confidence and experience to use the technique taught on this day because they will have the appropriate skills and supervision arrangements in place to ensure their clients are well protected. Those attendees without such experience are encouraged to obtain this experience, either through training in the entire HG training programme or in some other training.

Why is HG not being promoted by the universities or the Department of Health?

Human Givens Training is now accredited as an MA programme at Nottingham Trent University. The HG approach is a young and emerging one and maturation takes time. Much serious trauma treatment work has been and is being carried out on a regular basis. The British Psychological Society spring conference will feature three poster presentations on the HG approach, two of them focused on trauma treatment.

We hope that, in time, the Department of Health will take much more notice of the HG approach and we actively encourage all schools of all varieties of therapeutic orientations to work towards building a robust evidence base, including quantitative and qualitative study designs, from real-world effectiveness studies, so that we can all begin to learn much more about what seems to work for whom. The thought of (traumatised people) being ‘treated’ by people who think one technique and a day’s training makes them competent almost beggars belief. Indeed it would do, if this were true.

The technique used in the trauma-focused treatment as taught by MindFields College represents one aspect of the very comprehensive approach to treatment. HG treatment involves detailed assessment of unmet needs and the ultimate goal of all HG treatment is to assist clients to get lives that work effectively again. Sadly, we have all come across sufferers of trauma whose lives have been devastated and, even more sadly, some people have often had months or even years of psychological treatments, with little or no benefit. Surely it makes sense that we all unite as a field to attempt to find a common language we can agree on about what it is to be a functioning human being? Then to work to bring together our theories under better organising ideas that allow us to help clients live more effectively. This is an important issue when we are trying to convince people we are a serious professional body.

The Human Givens Institute (HGI) fully endorses and encourages all practitioners to work with outcome informed practice. In fact, HGI has paid the licence on behalf of its members for access to the excellent internet-based CORE Net system so that as many members as possible can participate in the gathering of robust sessional data on every client at every session as recommended by one of the architects of the IAPT programme, Professor David Clark. Various clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors and psychotherapists who choose to work with the HG approach fully support the call for a change in emphasis in the NICE hierarchy from excessive reliance on the RCT and for a move towards consideration of the sort of high quality robust quantitative data collection recommended as best practice by the HGI. Along with this we recommend exploration of all other types of evidence, from single case studies to high quality qualitative studies and triangulation studies and, indeed, RCT studies. We believe all serious professional bodies should join with us in this movement to widen the envelope of evidence that influences NICE guidelines. CORE IMS has been encouraging the building of such an evidence base from the ground up for well over a decade.

Hundreds of practitioners have been trained in the HG approach to trauma and can witness at first hand the enormous benefits for their clients. Meanwhile, the research process goes slowly on as the empirical base is built.

Bill Andrews
Co-ordinator HGIPRN
www.hgiprn.org
www.mindfields.org.uk/?wor=outl&code=EB

1. Cooper, M. Essential research findings in counselling and psychotherapy; the facts are friendly. Sage: London; 2008.