Research, anyone?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Cleesattel on February 9, 2010 at 12:34am

I did my own research on how and why hypnosis and trance work, and how the mind works in association with hypnosis and trance. It wasn't funded, it wasn't medically supervised, but it was done with a "proofs" system. I interviewed the only "experts" that I felt were qualified to answer questions about it, the clients and online subjects themselves. I set up specific goals to achieve with the research and then mapped out the results when I was successful in achieving them. I captured what I believe to be the entire hypnosis and trance mechanism, including how and why it works, and why we can be hypnotized in the first place.

I did it because of erroneous information that I received during my own training, and the controversy surrounding how hypnosis and trance work that you can see evidence of even now in this forum. I am, and always have been a "show me the facts" kind of guy. Opinions are like...well...everyone has one.

I wrote a book about my adventures and discoveries that I call "The Nature of Trance". It is available in E-book form on my website if you are interested further.

John

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Davis on February 9, 2010 at 1:19am

"I like the idea of working with physicians to recruit study participants, but the physicians would really need some incentive to get on board. How could they benefit from patients turning to non-medical treatment options? "

Hi Michelle,

The answer here is practice based commissioning. The surgeries and PCT's operate as businesses. If you can offer them a cheaper way of treating their patients then it is an option that they will consider. Take a person who is being referred for gastric band surgery for example - the GP practice and PCT have to commission the services of secondary care for an expensive operation. As a hypnotherapist you are able to offer them a much cheaper alternative to the surgery (most GP's would be happier referring a patient for hypnotherapy over surgery of this type on other grounds as well).

Look at smoking too. GP practices are given incentives to offer smoking cessation advice, and this is something they easily achieve with some quick printed notes. More forward thinking surgeries are looking to expand on this by really helping their patients to stop. Pharmaceutical products are being promoted (various patches etc.) on a daily basis. As a hypnotherapist we can offer them an alternative and get their patients to stop faster, reducing the number of times that the GP will need to see the patient, freeing up their time, reducing their pharmaceutical bill and saving costs as well as improving the overall health of the individual by removing all the related effects of smoking.

I am also a Massage therapist and I am targeting back pain patients with my GP's. Back pain is a very difficult condition to give a firm diagnosis of and these patients can often be on pain killing medication for indefinite periods of time, and unfortunately there are many patients who are cheating the system and malingering. This all costs the surgery time and money, by referring a patient to someone such as myself the practice can very quickly sort the genuine cases from the malingerers (if they aren't really in pain, they won't come for physical therapy, generally) and at the same time Massage has many proven benefits for alleviating back pain regardless of the source.

These are just a couple of the types of arguments I am putting forward in my discussions. I am getting good feedback from the GP's, it is the PCT's who take more convincing hence the need for a local trial to look at cost effectiveness of hypnotherapy over pharmaceutical/surgical intervention.

Think you've opened up a good thread here...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on February 9, 2010 at 2:52am

Chris Davis said:
I am getting good feedback from the GP's, it is the PCT's who take more convincing hence the need for a local trial to look at cost effectiveness of hypnotherapy over pharmaceutical/surgical intervention.

Think you've opened up a good thread here... That's because under PBC, the GPs don't pay directly for services; it's a virtual, not real, budget. The PCT has commissioners who commission (no really!) services, using whatever criteria, and the PCT pays for commissioned services via PBC.

Most surgeries come under clusters, and don't use PBC themselves (although they could do- the power of a group is greater than the influence of 1 surgery or lone GP). So if you REALLY want to get on board, it's the commissioners whose butts you'll have to please!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Ellner on February 9, 2010 at 7:03am

Hi Michelle,

I was one of the pioneers of CRIAR (Community Research Initiatives for AIDS Research) in NYC in the late 1980s. I helped design, fund and people several studies for CAM treatments for AIDS with technical assistance and the financial support from the National Institutes of Health.

FYI - Once an IRB (Institutional Review Board) approves your research protocol and takes responsibility for the safety assurances and selection process of a proposed study- You can apply for private and/or government funding. However, it is a lot easier said than done -- Especially if you are conducting research on "Alternative" practitioners who are not licensed health care providers. Very few IRBs are interested in backing this kind of research, especially if the research involves hypnotism...

One possible way to get started is to organize small study groups that focus on patient outcomes. These could be set up so that the supervising doctors who are carefully documenting their patient's starting and end points for our study group are paid for diagnosing and treating these patients out-of-pocket or by insurance coverage. Case histories that document the effectiveness of hypnosis delivered by certified hypnosis practitioners helping clients with IBS, FMS, CFS and Diabetes are areas ripe for this kind of data collection...

As we collect more and more data we are justifying larger and more formal studies and grants

Michael E.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on February 9, 2010 at 9:20am

Bugger- sorry, Chris. I messed up my HTML there. Most of those were my words!

Henxy said:

Chris Davis said:
I am getting good feedback from the GP's, it is the PCT's who take more convincing hence the need for a local trial to look at cost effectiveness of hypnotherapy over pharmaceutical/surgical intervention.

Think you've opened up a good thread here... That's because under PBC, the GPs don't pay directly for services; it's a virtual, not real, budget. The PCT has commissioners who commission (no really!) services, using whatever criteria, and the PCT pays for commissioned services via PBC.

Most surgeries come under clusters, and don't use PBC themselves (although they could do- the power of a group is greater than the influence of 1 surgery or lone GP). So if you REALLY want to get on board, it's the commissioners whose butts you'll have to please!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chase on February 9, 2010 at 10:06am

Research in hypnosis is a waste of time. At best all it shows is the intent and skill of the hypnotist conducting the research or the ability of the person being hypnotised to actually be hypnotised.

Being as neither of these is a constant how could one possibly research it.

It was for that reason that ether became a preferable aesthetic to hypnosis, anyone can use it and it has an entirely predictable result... well most of the time anyway.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Albright, C.H. on February 9, 2010 at 1:03pm

So much great information, you all have my synapses firing!

Chris, I was trying to get my mind wrapped around your response, then I realized... you aren't in the U.S.! That would explain why doctors there are trying to see patients less. It's a little different in the U.S. Doctors get paid per office visit, then bill per proceedure, as well. It's a cynical point of view that I have, but it really doesn't pay for doctors to keep their patients healthy in the good ole U S of A. We don't have PCTs (I had to look that up to find out what it was.) Insurance companies and federal programs (medicaid, medicare) are the ones trying to keep costs down here, not physicians. That was the basis of my earlier post regarding the incentive of doctors to work with a hypnotist in this regard. Doctors here, often spend very little time with each patient and squeeze as many patients into their schedule as possible. There are exceptions (specialists who are passionate about their field, for example) but for the most part, it's a numbers game at the doctor's office here. Get the patient in, then out, and schedule (billable) follow-up appointments. If a patient goes to a doctor to have 25 skin tags removed, the doctor will remove only the amount that is billable for a single visit, then schedule the patient to come back and have additional skin tags removed on another (billable) office visit. That's how they make a living. That's our capitalist angle on health care. This is in my mind when I consider working with physicians to improve patient outcomes with non-billable methods. If your symptoms are gone, you wont be scheduling that follow-up, now will you?

Michael E., I like the idea of small study groups. I have often wondered if the negative results that I have sometimes read with treatment incorporating hypnosis was due to the hypnosis being performed by a physician rather than a hypnotist. Obviously, a physician overseeing any medical study would be the only way to go, but having a hypnotist performing the actual session seems like it could affect the outcome.

Henxy, see my earlier post that mentions asthma. I wouldn't advocate removing anyone from treatment they already receive, but only mentioned using hypnosis *in addition to* current treatment. Asthma is a good study candidate because patients symptoms are often not completely controlled by medications that they take, and because hypnosis works so darned well on it. :) Again, a physician (or group of physicians) would have to oversee any medical study.

Jonathan, you've made yourself into one of the icons of hypnosis and I sincerely appreciate your comments. I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate them nonetheless. Your response, and all the responses here, remind me that in the field of hypnosis, unlike other fields, the highly successful veterans are incredibly accessable to those who are new to the field. I can't think of any other profession where someone merely curious about it, can call up (or email) a seasoned professional and ask how to get started... and receive a reply! Time and again I have seen posts from people completely new to hypnosis ask a question and get replies from the most knowledgeable practitioners in the industry. It continues to amaze me.

Thank you.


~Michelle

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Albright, C.H. on February 9, 2010 at 1:26pm

And how will that tell me if anyone on Hypnothoughts is currently doing research???

Ian Jay said:

Do a search for 'hypnotherapy' on Pubmed. You will find over 12,000 published studies.

IJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on February 11, 2010 at 6:24am

Michelle Albright, C.H. said:

Henxy, see my earlier post that mentions asthma. I wouldn't advocate removing anyone from treatment they already receive, but only mentioned using hypnosis *in addition to* current treatment. Asthma is a good study candidate because patients symptoms are often not completely controlled by medications that they take, and because hypnosis works so darned well on it. :) Again, a physician (or group of physicians) would have to oversee any medical study.

Hi Michelle. See my earlier post that mentions research methods. How on earth could you prove benefit was derived from hypnosis in a study where the participants using hypnosis were also taking medications? These groups for rigorous research methods require strict controls. The benefits of one treatment or therapy over another need to be statistically significant. You're on to a non-starter if you can't distinguish the benefits of one over the other.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Albright, C.H. on February 11, 2010 at 9:27am

From that point of view, you wouldn't be able to use an asthma patient in any clinical trial at all, since pretty much all asthma patients receive some medications to control their symptoms.

Actually, there are many clinical trials for asthma patients. See http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=asthma

If a patient takes a medication that does not fully control symptoms, then adding hypnosis and gauging results is measurable. The control group would continue with their usual medication regimine, which would not include hypnosis.
I believe that a hypnosis clinical trial with asthma is certainly possible.

Obviously, hypnosis in other clinical trials is possible, since there are currently some listed here: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=hypnosis+ And I would bet that they are not having the participants discontinue medication as part of the trial, at least not if they want to get funding for future trials and keep themselves from behind bars.

Double-blinding the trial would prove to be tricky, for sure. I don't know how it could be done.

This tangent is neither here, nor there, since asthma was only an example that I mentioned. I am not going to set up any experiments recruiting ashtmatics. I am just curious about what research hypnotists here are doing (or have done) and their experiences and results. I wasn't even limiting it to medical research, as behavioral research is a possiblility.

I absolutley agree with you that patient safety is paramount. I appreciate you for bringing that point to the discussion.

Thanks for your reply.


Henxy said:
BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Michelle. See my earlier post that mentions research methods. How on earth could you prove benefit was derived from hypnosis in a study where the participants using hypnosis were also taking medications? These groups for rigorous research methods require strict controls. The benefits of one treatment or therapy over another need to be statistically significant. You're on to a non-starter if you can't distinguish the benefits of one over the other.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on February 12, 2010 at 4:00am

Hi Michelle,

It's not the case that 'pretty much all asthma patients receive some medications to control their symptoms'. Many, but not most; looking at our figures.

I was talking about rigorous, credible research. Maybe you are not. Trials including medications use one medication versus another, or others, and have a control placebo group. As I said previously, if medications are involved with a hypnotherapy group, the improvement cannot scientifically be attributed to hypnotherapy. You stated you were talking about 'a trial with strict adherence to scientific method'; that is what I am providing you with.

I am not intending to irritate you here: I am sharing the benefit of my knowledge and experience. You, obviously, may choose to graciously accept this, or otherwise.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Albright, C.H. on February 12, 2010 at 11:21am

Maybe I am not understanding what point you are trying to convey?

At first, I thought that your concern was that asthma patients would be denied medication that they currently take to participate in a study involving the use of hypnosis.

But now that you state that "not most" asthma patients receive medications to control their symptoms, I'm not sure what the concern was?

You are not irritating me, I'm just trying to figure out what your point is. Please don't read anything combative into my posts, as that is not the spirit in which they are sent. I appologize if I am not effectively conveying the intended tone in my writing. I'll work on that.

Is it that you do not believe that a trial with strict adherence to scientific method is possible? I have no desire to debate, I'd like to see this as you are looking at it.

I agree with you that a trial with strict adherence to scientific method is what we're talking about here. There would be no point in conducting a trial otherwise, since results would not be credible. (And what would the point of that be? <-- that's a rhetorical question, as there would be no poiint.)

What would you consider to be rigorous, credible research in regard to hypnosis for the relief of asthma symptoms? I'm not challenging you, I'm merely asking your opinion of what (if any) sort of trial would yield credible results? How would you set it up if you were organizing the trial? For obvious reasons, it couldn't be double-blinded, but many trials are not, so I don't think that would adversely impact the credibility of the results. Do you think that this could be done?

I'm speaking purely in the hypothetical, so if you have any ideas you'd like to share, I'd like to hear them. I understand you have a medical background, so your perspective is especially valuable.

Thank you for your input. I appologize again if anything I stated earlier sounded crass or edgy, that was not my intent.



Henxy said:

Hi Michelle,

It's not the case that 'pretty much all asthma patients receive some medications to control their symptoms'. Many, but not most; looking at our figures.

I was talking about rigorous, credible research. Maybe you are not. Trials including medications use one medication versus another, or others, and have a control placebo group. As I said previously, if medications are involved with a hypnotherapy group, the improvement cannot scientifically be attributed to hypnotherapy. You stated you were talking about 'a trial with strict adherence to scientific method'; that is what I am providing you with.

I am not intending to irritate you here: I am sharing the benefit of my knowledge and experience. You, obviously, may choose to graciously accept this, or otherwise.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page