English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

An in-depth comparative case study was conducted of two attempts at diffusion of an empirically supported, but controversial, psychotherapy: eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). One Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) treatment setting in which there was substantial uptake was compared with a second VA setting in which it was not adopted. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 mental health clinicians at the first site, and 19 at the second. Critical selling points for EMDR were a highly regarded champion, the observability of effects with patients, and personally experiencing its effects during a role training session. Compatibility with existing psychotherapist practices and values further allowed the therapy to become embedded in the organizational culture. At the second site, a sense that EMDR was not theoretically coherent or compelling overwhelmed other considerations, including its empirical status. Comparative studies contrasting settings in which innovative therapies are implemented versus those in which they were rejected may aid in refining theories of and strategies for dissemination.

professional psychology, research and practice

Comparative case study of diffusion of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing in two clinical settings: Empirically supported treatment status is not enough.