In this post I suggest that organizing an event in which the English IAPT (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies) program is presented to citizens, economists and policymakers is a fairly easy thing to do with some potential impact on policymaking.

Assumption 1: Psychological therapies work better than most people assume.
Assumption 2: There is a big treatment gap between what we know that works in research (evidence based treatments) and what people with psychological issues are being offered.
Assumption 3: There are several reasons why closing this gap is not an easy thing to do. One of them is that a lot of clinicians themselves dislike the idea of regulations and guidelines. A second reason is that the clinical field is not using the arguments that work best to persuade policymakers: cost effectiveness. And a third is that the general public is not well informed about how effective psychological treatments (when they are delivered well and based on guidelines) really are (not for all problems, but for example definitely for anxiety disorders).
Assumption 4: There does not seem to be an ideal solution to the case, but the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies project (IAPT) in England looks like a big step forward. It includes elements that are very atypical for mental health care: interventions based on (NICE-)guidelines, extra training of clinicians in how to deliver the evidence based treatments, measuring progress of all patients, publishing those data publically on the website, using cost-effectiveness arguments to justify extra investments, … This is inspiring countries such as Norway, Canada and Israel and states such as California to start their own IAPT centers.
Assumption 5: Professor David M Clark which is one of the founders of IAPT is a charming public speaker who is willing to promote the IAPT model and does so in a way that is persuasive to the general public and policymakers. He also wrote a very accessible book on the IAPT program together with professor Layard.

Action: organize a (free) local event aimed at the general public, economics and policymakers in which Professor David M Clark speaks about IAPT.

What you need:
- a trustworthy name to invite professor Clark to make it seem worth the effort, such as a local professor in clinical psychology. In my experience a lot of CBT professors will love to help out, but they themselves just do not have the time to organize such things. A lot of them do not like lobbying neither.
- some money, but in our case it was not that expensive to organize. The biggest cost for us was a closing reception and a fancy lunch. We paid €1500 in total. We invited professors of several universities to be co-initiators, for which their universities contributed to cover the costs.
- professional organizations of therapists might be partners to help organize the event, but I assume that is culture-dependent. Some will really hate the idea to promote guidelines, cost-effectiveness arguments, …
- good timing might help: we organized it two months before the next federal elections, which made politicians more willing to attend and listen to the message.

Some colleagues and I invited professor Clark and he spoke recently at the University of Leuven (Belgium, link to the website of the event). 400 people attended, and all political parties were represented and were handed over the book on IAPT. We were inspired to organize this event by our Dutch colleagues who organized a similar thing last year. An interview with professor Clark also appeared before the event in a national newspaper.

We combined the lecture of professor Clark (1 hour, you can watch it here) with a panel discussion (1 hour, you can watch it here) including someone who could say something about what guidelines are (local Cochrane institute), what health economics is (a professor in health economics), what clinical psychology in Belgium looks like (a professor in clinical psychology), how politics work (a cabinet member of our minister of health) and how health care is organized (a representative of an umbrella organization of hospitals and outpatient centers). This might not result in the most spectacular discussion, but if you live in a country where there is almost no contact between your professors at the psychology department, the economics department and the people involved in guidelines for medicine, this can be the start of the conversation that is needed to start a project similar to IAPT.

It will still take many years before the IAPT logic will be implemented in Belgium, but I do assume that this event accelerated the process quite a bit.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Hello Kris. Can you say what type of people you think should be spending their time doing this? I like the idea, but it seems like a lot of effort for someone who is not already someone plugged into these networks and has a professional interest in the area.

I also think having David Clark speak at events is a scaleable solution!

Sorry for my late response, Michael. I agree that being plugged into these networks helps, but I think academics (at least in psychology) are very open to this idea but lack the time (and maybe skills) to organize such an event. I think that if a local EA group (or student group) would approach some professors in psychology (or health economics) with the suggestion to organize an event about IAPT for the general public and policymakers in their name, a lot of these professors would love to support that. I bet we can find those professors in each country, and I am of course willing to help find them.

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Until recently I thought Julia and I were digging a bit into savings to donate more. With the tighter funding climate for effective altruism we thought it was worth spending down a bit, especially considering that our expenses should decrease significantly in 1.5y when our youngest starts kindergarten. I was surprised, then, when I ran the numbers and realized that despite donating 50% of a reduced income, we were $9k (0.5%) [1] richer than when I left Google two years earlier. This is a good problem to have! After thinking it over for the last month, however, I've decided to start earning less: I've asked for a voluntary salary reduction of $15k/y (10%). [2] This is something I've been thinking about off and on since I started working at a non-profit: it's much more efficient to reduce your salary than it is to make a donation. Additionally, since I'm asking others to fund our work I like the idea of putting my money (or what would be my money if I weren't passing it up) where my mouth is. Despite doing this myself, voluntary salary reduction isn't something that I'd like to see become a norm: * I think it's really valuable for people to have a choice about where to apply their money to making the world better. * The organization where you have a comparative advantage in applying your skills will often not be the one that can do the most with additional funds, even after considering the tax advantages. * I especially don't think this is a good fit for junior employees and people without a lot of savings, where I'm concerned social pressure to take a reduction could keep people from making prudent financial decisions. * More issues... Still, I think this is a good choice for me, and I feel good about efficiently putting my money towards a better world. [1] In current dollars. If you don't adjust for inflation it's $132k more, but that's not meaningful. [2] I'm not counting this towards my 50% goal, just like I'm not counting the pay cut I took when
 ·  · 19m read
 · 
I am no prophet, and here’s no great matter. — T.S. Eliot, “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock”   This post is a personal account of a California legislative campaign I worked on March-June 2024, in my capacity as the indoor air quality program lead at 1Day Sooner. It’s very long—I included as many details as possible to illustrate a playbook of everything we tried, what the surprises and challenges were, and how someone might spend their time during a policy advocacy project.   History of SB 1308 Advocacy Effort SB 1308 was introduced in the California Senate by Senator Lena Gonzalez, the Senate (Floor) Majority Leader, and was sponsored by Regional Asthma Management and Prevention (RAMP). The bill was based on a report written by researchers at UC Davis and commissioned by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill sought to ban the sale of ozone-emitting air cleaners in California, which would have included far-UV, an extremely promising tool for fighting pathogen transmission and reducing pandemic risk. Because California is such a large market and so influential for policy, and the far-UV industry is struggling, we were seriously concerned that the bill would crush the industry. A partner organization first notified us on March 21 about SB 1308 entering its comment period before it would be heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, but said that their organization would not be able to be publicly involved. Very shortly after that, a researcher from Ushio America, a leading far-UV manufacturer, sent out a mass email to professors whose support he anticipated, requesting comments from them. I checked with my boss, Josh Morrison,[1] as to whether it was acceptable for 1Day Sooner to get involved if the partner organization was reluctant, and Josh gave me the go-ahead to submit a public comment to the committee. Aware that the letters alone might not do much, Josh reached out to a friend of his to ask about lobbyists with expertise in Cal
Relevant opportunities
22
CEEALAR
· · 1m read