Commentary on "The effectiveness of psychodynamic interventions for people with learning disabilities: a systematic review"

Purpose - This paper is a commentary on "The effectiveness of psychodynamic interventions for people with learning disabilities: a systematic review" by Chris James and James Stacey. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the thesis that standardised ways of evaluating health care interventions may have the inadvertent effect of undermining the case that people with intellectual disabilities should be offered the same opportunities to address their emotional and mental health difficulties as other citizens. Design/methodology/approach - The commentary argues that while the evidence base focuses on the outcomes of orthodox one-to-one interventions, sometimes broader "contextual reformulation" and systemic interventions are called for. However, family-or service-based interventions tend not to feature in studies. Findings - The commentary illustrates these issues by discussing two case studies, which demonstrate how relational issues tend to be unhelpfully focused on the person with intellectual disabilities to the detriment of family members or direct care staff, who may be struggling to make sense of the person's behaviour or distress. Originality/value - The commentary supports the argument put forward in the longer paper and also argues for mental health services to be offered on a non-discriminatory basis to people with intellectual disabilities and to their family members. But it also suggests that one of the additional impacts of service level psychotherapeutic interventions is to re-establish respect for the work of direct care staff whose work is often presented as if it is little more than domestic drudgery when in fact it involves negotiating and responding to people and their issues with great sensitivity and balance.