“Is it evidence-based?”
It’s a phrase that’s become the gold standard in modern mental health. NHS services, insurance companies, regulatory boards – they all lean heavily on this one metric to decide which therapies get airtime, funding, or validation.
On the surface, it sounds like a solid safeguard. After all, who wouldn’t want a therapy backed by science?
But here’s the trap: what’s evidence-based can easily become evidence-bound—locking us into one-size-fits-all approaches and closing the door on innovation, personalisation, and, ironically, more effective outcomes.
CBT & the Catch-All Problem
Take CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), for example.
It’s perhaps the most well-known and widely recommended of the evidence-based approaches. I’m actually a fan of CBT—it’s clear, structured, and empowering when used well. In fact, we include it as part of our Integrative Psychotherapy course at the College of Contemporary Therapy .
But like any model, CBT has its limitations.
One issue we frequently hear from clients is a resistance to the method—many simply don’t like it, or have tried it through the NHS and found it rigid or overly focused on “thinking your way out” of deep emotional or energetic issues. Others report feeling unheard or “processed” rather than truly supported.
More importantly, CBT can be misapplied as a default solution across wildly different conditions.
Let’s say someone has a severe phobia. The standard CBT route might take 6–12 sessions to desensitise and reframe the fear. But many energy psychology or hypnotherapy practitioners have seen phobias resolved in a single session, sometimes even in 20 minutes.
So why isn’t this used more often?
Because it’s not evidence-based… or more accurately, not yet.
Where’s the Research?
The obvious solution would be: “Let’s get more trials going!” And I agree completely. The field would benefit immensely from comparative studies that genuinely test outcomes across different approaches, not just legacy models with funding and institutional backing.
But here’s the rub: the trials often aren’t forthcoming. Research tends to follow funding, and funding tends to follow what’s already accepted. And so the loop continues.
In the meantime, thousands of practitioners are achieving results with clients through lesser-known but highly effective methods that never make it onto NICE guidelines or NHS referral lists—not because they don’t work, but because no one’s paid to prove that they do.
Evidence vs Effectiveness
There’s a deeper philosophical question here: Are we measuring what’s proven to work in theory, or what’s actually helping real people?
The risk is that we start mistaking “evidence-based” for “best for everyone,” when in truth, healing is complex, contextual, and deeply personal.
We lose the bespoke element of therapy when we treat the client like a diagnosis code and the therapy like a pharmaceutical prescription. Human beings are not lab rats. And therapeutic change is not always a linear, measurable affair.
The Integrative Way Forward
At the College of Contemporary Therapy, our stance is clear: use what works. Start with the client, not the model.
That’s why our Integrative Psychotherapy and Spiritual Counselling trainings draw from multiple traditions – CBT, psychodynamic, transpersonal, somatic, spiritual, and energy-based approaches. We honour the research, but we also honour the results.
We believe therapists should be well-versed in the evidence, but not bound by it. After all, the ultimate evidence is transformation.