> Evangelou and his team conclude that the field of psychotherapy research needs to work harder to ensure that negative results are published as well as good news results, especially given the findings of another recent paper suggesting that the field has a problem with undeclared researcher allegiance to particular therapeutic approaches.

And from that other recent paper:

> Reviews with a conclusion in favour of psychological therapies (vs pharmacological interventions) were at high risk for a spin in conclusions

For a field so rich in therapeutic models, I find it somewhat surprising that people are not more educated, walking in to visit with a therapist, as to what kind of model or therapy is being used, and what alternatives might be available.

I'm not a psychologist myself but rather a coach, and I love taking little breaks with my clients to move to a meta-perspective and walk them through the variety of models we can use together. Eventually they learn that each model has key leverage points as well as key weaknesses, and tying oneself to a single model as if it has no significant blind spots can quickly put one's desired outcomes at risk.

Maybe some psychologists here can weigh in; perhaps this is already a thing in the therapy world.