Mechanisms of Mind-Body Therapies Coursework 2022-23
Word count: 2400 words (+/- 10%)
Deadline: Monday 9th January 2023, 1pm
The Service Report is designed to replicate the type of task psychology graduates are often asked to perform in a range of employment settings. For example, Assistant Psychologists and Trainee Clinical and Counselling Psychologists frequently undertake such reports to help psychological services make evidence-based decisions about treatments options. Psychology graduates are valued members of such teams, due to their skills in critical evaluation of the literature and ability to apply findings to a particular setting or population.
The coursework aims to test your breadth of knowledge of two interventions (LO2), critical evaluation and literature review skills (LO3), knowledge of clinical applications and limitations of therapies (LO4), and ability to reflect on the cultural context of mind-body therapies (LO5).
You are working in an NHS psychological therapies service in an ethnically diverse area of London, however the service has noticed that patients from marginalised ethnic groups are under-represented in the patient numbers. Consultation with local community groups and existing patients suggests that a choice of a mind-body therapy, alongside the standard talking therapy currently offered would be welcomed. You have been asked by your Service Manager to investigate two suitable mind-body therapies and to write a report on these so that the service can determine which therapy to offer to its patients.
You have been asked to 1) describe what the interventions are (as no one in the service has much knowledge of such therapies) 2) explain the ways that the therapies claim to increase wellbeing; 3) review the literature on the two therapies, and to report on their effectiveness; 4) try out at least one of the therapies yourself and 5) provide a final recommendation about which intervention you think should be offered to the patients.
To approach this task, you should first choose:
1) One of the following services to imagine that you are working in:
i. A service for young people with eating disorders
ii. A service for adults who have chronic pain
iii. A service for adults experiencing drug and/or alcohol addiction
iv. A service for older adults with common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety
2) The two mind-body therapies that you will write the report on.
3) The one therapy to try out and reflect upon.
Please note: You are unable to use the intervention you presented in the Debate, as one of your interventions for the Service Report. However, you may use interventions that other Debate group members used.
Within your report you should include the following sections, with headings:
· Title: An appropriate title which clearly informs the reader of the interventions discussed and patient group
· Context of Report: A description of the patient group your service works with, including relevant clinical presentations and issues faced by this population.
· Description of Mind-Body Therapies: Introduce what mind-body therapies are and a description of the two therapies you will be discussing. Include an explanation for how the therapies claim to increase health and wellbeing -this may be done through a description of the mechanisms and/or philosophy behind the intervention.
· Effectiveness of Therapies: A critical review of the literature on the effectiveness of each intervention. You can report on studies for general populations and also for your specific patient group, if there are any studies on this. If there are only very few studies, report on this and evaluate why this might be.
· Personal Reflection: Reflect in a personal way on the one of the interventions you have written about and that you have tried out yourself (this does not need to be the one you recommend).
a. How did you engage with the intervention -what did you do?
b. What was the impact of your engagement with the intervention -what changes, if any, did you notice? What did you notice at the level of body, emotions, thoughts, interpersonal relationships, work, study?
c. How accessible was it -How easy was it to do, any challenges?
· Overall evaluation of Therapies: Based on all of the points above, provide an overall assessment of each intervention’s suitability for your population group and service and also how it is likely to appeal to the diverse population of the area. You will also want to take into consideration factors that may affect how appropriate the intervention is for your service, such as cost-effectiveness, level of training of practitioners (i.e. will the service need to employ accredited practitioners and if so, what are the standards for training, or will existing staff be able to deliver it), considerations for patient safety, things to bear in mind for your particular population etc. You can also incorporate your own personal practice into this assessment.
· Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the Service Manager about which intervention should be offered to the patients and offer a rationale for your choice.
· References: In-text citations should be used to back up the information in your report, so that the service manager can see the information is from reputable sources and also so that they can look up references for further information. Make sure to format your reference list according to the style used in your course (e.g. psychology students should use APA 7th edition formatting as outlined in this years AWiP).
Does the title accurately reflect the particular intervention being reported on and patient group?
Title does not reflect the chosen intervention or patient group
Title may reflect either the intervention or patient group
Title reflects both the intervention and patient group, but it may be unclear
Title reflects both the intervention and group/setting in a clear way
Title very accurately reflects the intervention and group/setting
Context of report
Little or no description of the service or population group or the issues faced.
Minimal description of the service or population group, with little discussion on the issues faced, and no references to back this up.
Some description of service or population group, as well as some discussion of the issues faced. However, this may lack some references or may lack some relevance to the report.
Good description of the service and population group, which helps set up the context for the report, and is referred back to in other sections. Issues faced by the population are clearly discussed and relevant to the report.
Excellent description of the service and population group, which clearly sets up the context for the report, and is referred back to in other sections. Issues faced by the population are excellently discussed, enabling the reader to have a thorough understanding of the needs of the population.
Description of the interventions under investigation
Little or no description of the interventions
Minimal description of the interventions. There is not a clear attempt to outline the key aspects of the therapy, and no or minimal background and context.
Some description of the interventions, with the outlining of some of the key aspects, but it may be unclear. There may be background and context discussed but this may be minimal and/or vague
Describes the interventions in a generally clear way, and provides some background and context that would be useful for the service manager.
Very clear description which explains the interventions very clearly and provides an excellent summary of the background and context,
An explanation for how the interventions claim to increase health and/or wellbeing
No explanation of the mechanisms behind the interventions
Minimal explanation of mechanisms behind the interventions. It may be unclear or include inaccuracies.
Some explanation of the mechanisms behind the interventions. There is an attempt to link this to health and wellbeing.
A generally clear explanation of the mechanisms behind the interventions and how they claim to increase health and/or wellbeing. The explanation is appropriate for the intended audience.
A very clear and informative explanation of the mechanisms behind the interventions and how they claim to increase health and/or wellbeing. The explanation is appropriate for the intended audience.
A review of the literature on the effectiveness of the intervention
Minimal or no research on the effectiveness of the interventions. There is no mention of the challenges of measuring the outcomes. Any discussion on effectiveness is not evidence-based. No literature is discussed and there is little or no evaluation.
Minimal research on the effectiveness of the interventions. Challenges of measuring the outcomes are probably not discussed. There is minimal reference to the evidence-base, poorly backed up with literature. There is little evaluation.
Some research has been undertaken on the effectiveness of the intervention, and the challenges of measuring the outcomes are mentioned. There is engagement with the evidence-base, however this may not be sufficiently in-depth and/or not well backed up with literature. There is evidence of an evaluative element.
In-depth research has been undertaken on the effectiveness of the interventions, and the challenges of measuring the outcomes are discussed. There is good engagement with the evidence-base, which is generally well backed up with literature. There is clear evidence of an evaluative element.
Very good and in-depth research has been undertaken on the effectiveness of the interventions, and the challenges of measuring the outcomes are discussed well. There is very good engagement with the evidence-base, which is well backed up with literature. There is a balanced and clear evaluative element.
Minimal or no reflection. There may be some basic description only.
Some basic reflections on the intervention, but mainly it is descriptive.
Appropriate reflections on the engagement with the intervention, considering it’s impact on the student.
Very good reflections on the intervention, considering the impact it had on the student on a number of levels (e.g. physically, emotionally, cognitively).
Excellent reflections on the intervention, thoughtful considerations of it’s impact and possible reasons for this impact.
Minimal or no overall evaluation is provided
There is an overall evaluation, however it may be vague.
There is an overall evaluation, which highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the service offering the interventions to it’s patients. However it may not be in-depth or cover many points, and/or may not follow on from the earlier discussion.
There is a generally in-depth overall evaluation, which highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the service offering the interventions to it’s patients. This evaluation follows on from the earlier discussion.
There is a very in-depth overall evaluation, which highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the service offering the interventions to it’s patients. This evaluation clearly follows from the earlier discussion.
There is no recommendation, or if there is, it is vague.
There is a recommendation, but there is minimal or unclear rationale for it.
There is a recommendation, with some rationale behind it, though this may not be in detail or convincing.
There is a recommendation, with a convincing rationale behind it.
There is a very clear rationale offered, with a convincing rationale.
The overall readability of the case study including sentence structure, grammar, spelling and academic style of writing
General structure of case study is difficult to follow.
Paragraphs are unfocused, incoherent or require restructuring.
Topic sentences are absent or unconnected to the paragraphs that follow.
Signposting is poor.
There is evidence of some structure to the case study but it may be hard to follow in places.
Paragraphs have some coherence but may not be well focussed.
Topic sentences can be followed and have some connection to the main paragraph but may be poorly structured and/or focussed.
There is minimal signposting
Case study has separate introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, but connections among these could be improved.
Most paragraphs are coherently structured.
Topic sentences signal structure of argument, but may require more focus.
Signposting helps connect parts of argument.
Case study is well organised and has separate introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
Paragraphs contain clear topic sentences and have a coherent and organised structure, which mostly focus on a single issue. There is an evident argument being followed.
Effective use of signposts that help make the structure of review clear.
Review is very well organized, containing an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
Paragraphs contain clear topic sentences, focus on a single issue, are coherent, and organized according to an obvious pattern of argument.
Very effective use of signposts that make the structure of review clear.
Citations and References
How well the references are presented in the reference section
Some or many in-text citations are missing or otherwise incorrect. Some or many references are missing in the reference list, or otherwise incorrect.
Some in-text citations are included, with some missing or otherwise incorrect. Some references in the reference list are included, with some missing or otherwise incorrect
Citations are included with some issues identified with citations and/or reference list.
Citations are included, and approach predominately follows one style (e.g. Harvard or APA). Reference list is mostly complete and correct.
Citations are included, and approach follows one style (e.g. Harvard or APA) consistently. Reference list is correct and complete.
Is this the question you were looking for? Place your Order Here