I found this article on the PULSE Website.
Below the article is a number of comments written by medical professionals.
The interesting one relates to the way the study spoken about in the article below was conducted. ie. Without the use of a Control Group, a practice no psychologist or scientist of any standing would put their name to as a robust study.
This is however common practice for psychologists today, especially when their studies relate to government policy.
The wholesale selling of behavioral change agenda to the public under the guise of ‘Evidence Based‘ under these conditions is highly contentious and misleading.
Most of the general public have no notion of what ‘Evidence Based’ constitutes, what the rules are to make such claims, or what a statistically significant outcome is.
Here is the article….. More pseudo science and cost cutting…
loobitzh
Lindas Blog 
Readers’ comments (3)
There is no control group, so there is no way to know if the practitioners affected the patients in any way (so it could judst be a badly flawed study). Imagining that some might have benefited in each group, they have not been swapped over to the other therapy.
The sample sizes may seem large in days of low budgets, but they are in fact small for psychological research if you want any kind of confidence in the conclusion.
There are other flaws, not the least the obvious fact that ‘good’ staff tend to produce positive outcomes regardless of treatment type, whereas ‘bad’ staff do the reverse – so that often the trial is of staff, not treatment. This is something that dogs research into education practice, for example. But without a large control group given the same assessments bythe same people, the whole trial is meaningless, a problem that dogs psychological research.
However, the obvious thought that doing something in which you are interested and which has a positive feel-good factor, as opposed to doing little of interest and trying to follow an enforced therapeutic regime, has occured to people before.