Formulation

Question 1

Formulation intro

Answer 1

Diagnosis- identification through nature of illness by examination of symptoms
Critique’s: reliability. Validity and stigmatising
Stigmatising may impact level of patient care
If formulation improves staff attitudes may address the important limitation of diagnosis and improve patient outcomes

Question 2

Formulation - barry et al (2009)

Answer 2

Barry et Al (2009) tested whether using formulation improves staff attitudes amongst service users
30 staff with psychosis patients
Pre and post design- attitudes measured in both
Participants completed formulations for service users profiles
Across all attitudes there were postive outcomes in - optimism, confidence in helping, degree of understanding
Formulation seemed to help
However study design no control group

Question 3

Formulation- Wilkinson et al (2017)

Answer 3

Wilkinson et Al (2017) more rigorous design employed
Which compared effect of being exposed to formulation and not being exposed
In 154 staff- focused on effect on empathy
Using a vignette of service user, which contained details of formulation or didn’t diagnosis only
Forensic setting
No difference of empathy on two groups
Seems formulation doesn’t work
However, should we be looking at staff and look directly at user outcomes

Question 4

Formulation- persons et al (2006)

Answer 4

Persons et Al (2006) looked at the naturalist outcome for formulation driven CBT for anxious depressed patients
58 patients with weekly monitoring which shown clinical and statistical improvements in anxiety and depressive episodes
However this study was a naturalistic and uncontrolled trail- need for RCT testing