Eighteen clinicians who were identified as leaders in
energy psychology (EP) within the United States and Canada (based on criteria that
included publications on the topic, faculty positions in established training programs,
and visibility at national and international conferences), and who are also trained in
conventional therapies, offered their impressions of the diagnostic categories where EP
was more effective, about as effective, or less effective than the other modalities
available to them. The survey used a subset of the diagnostic categories specified in an
earlier report of therapist impressions at 11 clinics in Argentina and Uruguay (Andrade
& Feinstein, 2004) and produced parallel findings.
The therapists in both groups all believed that EP was more effective
than the other approaches available to them in treating most anxiety disorders, including
the hyperarousal found in PTSD, and many of the most common emotional difficulties of
everyday life, from inappropriate anger to excessive feelings of guilt, shame, grief,
jealousy, rejection, and isolation. Conditions for which combining EP with more
conventional treatments was believed to produce more rapid outcomes than the conventional
treatment alone included mild to moderate reactive depression, generalized anxiety
disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorders, learning skills disorders, borderline
personality disorder, eating disorders, and substance abuse. Most therapists in the two
groups reported that as the sole therapy, they believed EP’s effectiveness is limited
in overcoming major endogenous depression, dissociative identity disorder, bipolar
disorders, many personality disorders, and psychotic disorders, although several described
some success in treating such disorders (including the resolution of trauma underlying
dissociative identity disorder and the reduction of auditory and visual hallucinations
with psychotic disorders). Several also mentioned that while they did not see EP as an
independent treatment for these disorders, it had helped individuals with debilitating
psychiatric conditions make better adjustments to their diagnosis and their life
situation, in part by reducing the stress associated with the primary condition.
The only harm reported, in responses by the second group to a query
about contraindications, was that in the hands of inexperienced or lay therapists, people
have sometimes been retraumatized—not by the technique itself, but by revisiting
unresolved trauma without adequate preparation or support. Practitioners trained first in
EMDR and then in EP also reported that EP both provides greater flexibility in the range
of issues that can be addressed and that its methods can be more readily modulated by the
practitioner to prevent retraumatization, an issue that has been of concern with EMDR
treatments (Hartung & Galvin, 2003). Concern about using tapping methods with
individuals who have convulsive disorders was mentioned by one respondent, although no
instances of harm were described. While these reports originate from therapists who are
professionally identified with EP, they provide initial practitioner impressions of the
conditions for which EP is more effective and less effective, and they suggest that the
method is unlikely to do harm. |
Andrade, J., & Feinstein, D. (2004). Energy
psychology: Theory, indications,
evidence. In D. Feinstein, Energy psychology interactive (Appendix,
pp.
199 – 214). Ashland, OR: Innersource.
Hartung, J., and Galvin, M. (2003). Energy psychology and EMDR:
Combining forces to optimize treatment. New York: Norton. |
