Flexible ACT & Resource-group ACT: Different Working Procedures Which Can Supplement and Strengthen Each Other. A Response#
Remmers van Veldhuizen 1, *, Philippe Delespaul 2, Hans Kroon 3, Niels Mulder 4
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2015
First Page: 12
Last Page: 15
Publisher Id: CPEMH-11-12
Article History:Received Date: 18/12/2014
Revision Received Date: 22/12/2014
Acceptance Date: 22/12/2014
Electronic publication date: 26 /2/2015
Collection year: 2015
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
This article is a response to Nordén and Norlander’s ‘Absence of Positive Results for Flexible Assertive Community Treatment. What is the next approach?’, in which they assert that ‘at present [there is] no evidence for Flexible ACT and… that RACT might be able to provide new impulses and new vitality to the treatment mode of ACT’. We question their analyses and conclusions. We clarify Flexible ACT, referring to the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment Manual (van Veldhuizen, 2013)  to rectify misconceptions. We discuss Nordén and Norlander’s interpretation of research on Flexible ACT. The fact that too little research has been done and that there are insufficient positive results cannot serve as a reason to propagate RACT. However, the Resource Group method does provide inspiration for working with clients to involve their networks more effectively in Flexible ACT.