2 / 6
Page 66
Notes:
conferenceseries
.com
Volume 20
International Journal of Emergency Mental
Health and Human Resilience
ISSN: 1522-4821
Mental Health 2018
April 26-27, 2018
April 26-27, 2018 | Rome, Italy
4
th
International Conference on
Mental Health and Human Resilience
The depression conundrum and the advantages of uncertainty
Jan Edmund Celie, Loeys T, Desmet M
and
Verhaeghe P
Ghent University, Belgium
A
ccording to the WHO (2012), the prevalence of unipolar depressive disorders is rising, even in those places where mental
health treatments are widely available. The WHO predicts that these disorders will be the leading contributor to the global
burden of disease by 2030. This sobering projection fits poorly with how psychological treatments for depression are presented
in the mainstream scientific literature: as highly effective therapies, based upon a sound understanding of the causes of distress.
There is a clear discrepancy between the rising prevalence figures on the one hand, and the confident claims of this effectiveness
research on the other. This discrepancy prompts a set of complex interlinked questions, which we have called ‘The Depression
Conundrum’. In search of a partial answer, the aim of our study was to critically analyse five meta-analytic studies investigating
the effectiveness of psychological EBTs for depression, all of which had been published in high impact factor journals. Our
examination established a number of methodological and statistical shortcomings in every study. Furthermore, we argue that
the meta-analytic technique is founded upon problematic assumptions. The implications of our analysis are clear: decades of
quantitative research might not allow us to conclude that psychological EBTs for depression are effective. The uncertainty and
questions raised by our findings might act as a catalyst to broaden the way in which depression and associated therapies are
researched. In addition, it might contribute toward a more vigorous and interdisciplinary debate about how to tackle this soon-
to-be global public health priority number one.
Biography
Jan Edmund Celie is a Clinical Psychologist/Psychoanalyst with a private practice. His main perspective on treatment is a Freudian-Lacanian perspective. He
has been puzzled and fascinated at the same time, by the rising prevalence figures for depression worldwide. Five years ago, at the age of 50, he went back to
research and study at Faculty of Psychology of University of Ghent (Belgium). In 2018, following upon this research, he will defend a doctoral dissertation in which
he develops mainly three arguments: the diagnostic construct of depression lacks scientific foundation; and neither the psychotherapeutic nor pharmacological
EBTs for depression are as firmly ‘evidence-based’ as their proponents claim.
jan.celie@ugent.beJan Edmund Celie et al., Int J Emerg Ment Health 2018, Volume 20
DOI: 10.4172/1522-4821-C1-012