Evidence-based is a term coaches and mental health professionals use to indicate someone did a study on the process they are using. This does not mean these practitioners produce measurable outcomes. This is an important distinction if you need an indication of the competence and performance of a practitioner.
For the first time, measurable outcomes were put forth in the media in regard to PTSD which you can find here. “VA PTSD treatment inadequate, study shows” Burris Institute and its Functional Emotional Fitness™ process has produced measurable outcomes for PTSD, depression, eating disorders and many other emotional health issues since its introduction into psychiatric care in 1990.
We feel the media recognizing the fact you simply do not know what works and what does not work unless you measure it is a significant step in effectively addressing not just PTSD but every other emotional health issue. We also feel the fierce resistance in regard to measurable outcomes for depression and PTSD we have come up against from NIMH, DCoE, APA and many other entities we have approached over the past five years is about to change.
When one takes the approach of immediately measuring the emotional state of the client and then addressing the thought process behind it, medication is unnecessary the largest percentage of the time. It is only when one does not immediately address the primary issue or if one is guessing does medication become the only viable option. Medication may be appropriate for a physiological disorder but a clear distinction must be made as opposed to grouping psychological and physiological disorders. One can benefit from Emotional Wellness even if there is a physiological issue. However, one rarely benefits from medication if it is specifically a psychological issue.
Regardless of whether someone is suffering from depression, PTSD or an eating disorder the primary issue is emotional distress and there is a thought process behind this distress. Effectively addressing this fundamental issue does not require a label. In fact, a label could prohibit a quick recovery or even cause a higher level of emotional distress.
No Personal History Required
Is personal history useful when attempting to come out of an emotionally distressed state? If you are indeed addressing an emotionally distressed state and not a personal history issue, the answer is straightforward. Digging into background history while one is emotionally distressed can and will exacerbate emotional stress. If the emotional distress is specific to a thought process, which the majority of behavior disorders are, then personal history or psychoanalysis is NOT useful. If a physiological issue is confirmed a medical history is most certainly appropriate.
When labels, personal history, and medication are bypassed in favor of immediately addressing the emotional state and the thought process behind it there is no stigma from the beginning. If you suffer from depression, PTSD or an eating disorder in the absence of evidence of a physiological abnormality, you are simply not emotionally well, you are NOT mentally ill.
Making a distinction between a psychological disorder and a physiological illness is imperative to resolve either issue as quickly as possible. This is only possible if the disorder or illness represents its true origin via its naming convention. In other words, is it a thought process or a physiological abnormality? If there is no evidence of a physiological abnormality then it simply makes sense to immediately address the Emotional Fitness of the client and the thought process behind it. It does not make sense to stigmatize the client with labels, medication or by dragging them through the junkyard of their past.