I was pleased to see that Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) was given space in the April 2009 edition of Therapy Today. Regardless of debates about whether or not the increasing use of ‘evidence-based’ therapies in the UK is a good thing for clients or the profession of counselling, training in IPT will undoubtedly attract counselling students and experienced practitioners who are interested in extending their skill set to a model that appeals to mental health service employers.

However, when I came to read the article by Julia Bueno, I was disappointed to find it had no reference list of the key texts and research on IPT for further reading. Why did Therapy Today not edit this article to include vital references? For instance, it would have been useful to know which ‘manual’ was referred to as being used by Julia Fox-Clinch.
 
It was clear that Ms Bueno was not enthusiastic about the use of manualised therapies. Her commentary, including ‘[IPT work]… rather slavishly follows the letter and the law of the manual…’ and ‘…odd that a therapy so bound up in exploring relationships seems to put a manual in the middle of the therapeutic one,’ sounded dismissive of a way of working that is different from her own. That type of judgmentality does not enhance the practice of integrative counselling. Might the article have been more thoroughly documented if it had been written by a practitioner who was at least neutral about the use of manualised therapies?
 
Given the generally high standard of writing in Therapy Today and the journal’s encouragement of debate, I am wondering, am I the only person who had a problem with some aspects of how this article was written (or edited)? Were there other letters on this subject sent in?
 

Caroline Vermes, M Ed, MBACP (Accred), Director, North West Centre for Eating Disorders, Stockport