Search

Summary Translocation of the threatened species Singelton Mint Bush (Prostanthera cineolifera R.T.Baker & H.G.Sm.) was carried out for a highway project on the New South Wales North Coast to mitigate development impact on this species. The translocation aimed to augment an existing population with propagated plants to compensate for cleared plants and conduct field research to better understand the effects of soil properties, horticultural practices and a wildfire on translocation results. A novel soil seedbank and fire method applied ex‐situ was used to propagate plants for introduction. After an initial attempt at site‐wide introduction resulted in widespread mortality of seedlings from a wilt disease, three plot‐based experiments were carried out to examine how disease incidence was related to spatial variation in soil properties and horticultural practices. The experiments showed that relatively subtle changes in the clay and sand content of soil strongly affected susceptibility of Singelton Mint Bush seedlings to wilt disease; 12 month old seedlings performed much better than 6 month old seedlings; plants propagated from seed performed better than cuttings, and most of the recipient site represented unsuitable habitat for Singelton Mint Bush. Sufficient Singelton Mint Bush seedlings were established after 3 years, but after a bushfire, the translocated cohort recruited poorly from seed, so that after 6 years, <10% of the total Singelton Mint Bush population in the recipient site was of translocated origin and >90% of in‐situ (pre‐translocation) origin. Lessons learnt from the translocation project were that: (i) microhabitat is as important as macrohabitat in selecting a translocation recipient site; (ii) short‐term survival may not be a reliable indicator of a self‐sustaining population; (iii) translocation incorporating designed experiments can greatly improve understanding of how certain factors influence species performance and (iv) horticultural practices can be as important as ecology in determining the translocation outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK in 2007 a national experiment was initiated with the aim of tackling “Britain’s biggest social problem”: depression. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) was devised as the solution. A universal free-to-access talking therapies program would make available evidence-based treatment to all patients with depression and anxiety disorders. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), the body that decides on what is cost-effective, said cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT), not medication, should be its first line offer. The starting gun was fired. The promise from IAPT was 3-fold: to scale up access to CBT rapidly; to achieve recovery targets that would reduce the prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders over time; and – most ambitious of all – to ensure the Treasury would see a return on its investment by reducing the economic burden from depression. People who were on invalidity benefits due to depression would be supported back into employment. It was a New Deal for depression, as well as for CBT. But did it work? A decade and a half on with IAPT, are we in any position to give an answer? It is attempted to draw lessons about “what worked”, and what didn’t, to ask ourselves a question: are we – those of us in the applied psychoanalytic community – willing to garner what can be learned from IAPT to advocate a New Deal for evidence-based psychoanalysis? Faced with challenges from unemployment and widening inequalities, against a backdrop where global economic recovery must heed the existential threats from climate change and warfare, to say nothing of the scale of loss and grief for those already impacted by bereavement due to the pandemic, the need for such deal could not be more urgent [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK in 2007 a national experiment was initiated with the aim of tackling "Britain's Biggest Social Problem"—Depression. Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) was devised as the solution. A universal free‐to‐access talking therapies program would make available evidence‐based treatment to all adults with depression. NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), the body that decides on what is cost‐effective, said CBT, not antidepressants, should be its first line offer. The starting gun was fired. The promise from IAPT was 3‐fold: to scale up access to CBT rapidly; to achieve recovery targets that would reduce the prevalence of depression over time; and—most ambitious of all—to ensure the Treasury would see a return on its investment by reducing the economic burden from depression. People who were on invalidity benefits due to depression would be supported back into employment. It was a New Deal for depression. As well as for CBT. But did it work? A decade and a half on with IAPT, are we in any position to give an answer? This paper will seek to draw lessons about "What Worked", and what didn't, to ask ourselves a question: are we—those of us in the applied psychoanalytic community—willing to garner what can be learned from IAPT to advocate a new deal for evidence‐based psychoanalysis? Faced with challenges from unemployment and widening inequalities, against a backdrop where global economic recovery must heed the existential threats from climate change and ongoing warfare, to say nothing of the scale of loss and grief for those already impacted by bereavement due to the pandemic, the need for some such deal could not be more urgent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper offers a preview of a forthcoming article on the world's first, universal free‐to‐access, evidence‐based talking therapies programme to treat depression: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies. It was pioneered not in the USA, but the UK, in 2007. At one time it could have been led by psychoanalysts, but it wasn't. It was a New Deal, in fact, for CBT. But did this New Deal in 2007 also offer psychoanalysis an opportunity to renew its vitality as a discipline, after decades of being eroded by our long‐term retreat into private practice? Illustrated in the film From Here to Eternity, through characters played by Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift and Frank Sinatra, this Preview shows how applied psychoanalysis can once again aspire to become a universal, genuinely popular, relevant professional discipline. How would we engage ethically with psychiatric casualties of war, for example, within an evidence‐based practice framework today? A novel, brief psychoanalytic treatment for depression, Dynamic Interpersonal Therapy, was developed for use in the UK's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. It is recommended by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) as cost‐effective for treating depression. By engaging with evidence‐based practice in this way—as Street Level Bureaucrats—we can reclaim our position at the centre of contemporary publicly funded mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epistemic injustice has rapidly become a powerful tool for analysis of otherwise hidden social harms. Yet empirical research into how resistance to knowing and understanding can be generated and replicated in social programmes is limited. We have identified a range of subtle and not-so-subtle inflections of epistemic injustice as they play out in an intervention for people with chronic depression in receipt of disability benefits. This article describes the different 'species' of epistemic injustice observed and reveals how these are unintentionally produced at frontline, management, commissioning and policy levels. Most notably, there remains a privileging of clinical knowledge over other forms of knowledge, producing a 'pathocentric epistemic complex'. This, combined with the failure of different agencies with competing ideologies to adequately understand each other, and a vicious policy context, added to the injustices already faced by people with mental health issues, generating multiple harms. This has important implications for a range of integrated care and welfare interventions – not least by drawing attention to their unintended potential for replicating epistemic injustice as an institutionalised complex. Careful evaluation and design of such programmes, applying the philosophical and epistemic resources illustrated here, can help mitigate this outcome. Further, by raising awareness of epistemic injustice among programme participants, we can generate epistemic structures that secure programme integrity locally, and promote better policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dalal says that spending public money sensibly like this "is completely reasonable" (p. 138), but his jumping off point is not the disaster of the tsunami of CBT itself (IAPT) but the earthquake that produced it, Professor Lord Richard Layard's influence under the New Labour government in promoting his agenda for happiness (Layard, [9]). For Dalal, if I understand his key objections, the reason therapy cannot be tested in the same way as for anti-depressants, for which he thinks an RCT "works fine" (p. 157), is you cannot meet the conditions of blinding participants (patients, therapists and those analysing the results) as to which is the real treatment, and which is the placebo. Yet, though they write authoritatively about IAPT's flaws and with little to nothing positive to say about IAPT's achievements, and whilst much of this negative criticism I agree with, only a couple of authors, as far as I can tell, have more than a passing involvement in IAPT directly. More pointedly, Rose tells us, it was in the context of the financial crisis of 2008 and the austerity policies which followed on, that IAPT practitioners were operating, delivering: therapy conceived along the lines of a course of pharmaceutical treatment, with its effects being "dose dependent" - that is to say, the benefits depend on the number of "doses", or "treatment episodes", up to the completion of the prescribed course. [Extracted from the article]

Melanie Klein's seminal concept of projective identification provides an important theoretical mechanism for working through the Oedipus complex. Klein saw it as the key to achieving emotional maturity. As well as the choice of object, which decides our sexual identity, Klein sees a second choice to be made as subject, which shapes our gender. The question is not only 'what does a woman (or man) want?', as Freud and Jones argued, but 'who (and how) does a woman (or man) become?', as Simone de Beauvoir memorably asked. How is our gender acquired for us and by us? Queer theory asks us to refuse gender normativity. That is one response. But unless we arrive at our own answer to gender, says Klein, the capacities both to love and to be loved will remain elusive. Klein invites us to leave Oedipus behind in Ancient Thebes and move the stage to Paris in 1920, the setting for a novel by Julien Green, If I Were You. Our Modern hero is a young man, Fabian Especel. This article rediscovers Fabian and adds to Klein's theory of internal objects the role of queer objects as Weberian 'abject types', to update the Oedipus complex today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is our foundational story of sexual identity still relevant and valid for today, or is it wrong? Oedipus has been used in the past as a cautionary tale for the consequences of transgressive sexuality, as well as an exemplar of hetero-normative development. Perhaps most influentially he has been used recently to illustrate a mechanism that underpins the concept of a pathological organization of personality, a perverse turning of a blind eye to the truth. But is this reading mistaken? In this article I return to the crossroads with Oedipus to try to give him back – for the first time – his sexual identity. By offering a re-reading of the myth in light of how we understand the impact of internalized stigma on the formation of sexual identity today I hope to show that our psychoanalytic imagination can use the Oedipus myth to encompass a range of different developmental possibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]