Current Practices in Clinical Hypnosis: Research and Commentary

ABSTRACT

This issue of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis provides a landmark international survey of clinicians across 31 countries regarding current practices and views of clinical hypnosis. Thirty-six common uses of hypnosis were identified including stress reduction, wellbeing, and other applications. The most common approaches to hypnotherapy were Ericksonian, Hypnotic Relaxation Therapy, and Traditional Hypnosis. Commentaries are provided by leading experts in the field of clinical and experimental hypnosis.

Introduction

Clinical hypnosis has many applications in the treatment of psychological disorders, medical problems, and enhancing well-being. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the actual practices, views, and experiences of clinicians using hypnosis. The first article in this issue of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis fills this gap. A landmark survey of 691 clinicians across 31 countries was conducted (Palsson et al., 2023) to determine the most common clinical uses of hypnosis, ratings of efficacy in clinical practice, approaches, and experiences. The survey identified 36 applications of clinical hypnosis. Further, the results show that the most common applications for which clinicians use hypnosis are for stress reduction, well-being, surgery preparations, anxiety management, mindfulness facilitation (mindful hypnotherapy) and labor and childbirth (Palsson et al., 2023).

Commentary by Dr. Kihlstrom (2023) notes the importance of assessment of hypnotizability. The lead article, Current Practices, Experiences, and Views in Clinical Hypnosis: Findings of an International Survey (Palsson et al., 2023) revealed that few clinicians reported use of hypnotizability scales. However, as pointed out by Dr. Kihlstrom, the routine assessment of hypnotizability can improve clinical practice by identifying hypnotic abilities of patients and clients, informing sessions needed, and providing information about the underlying mechanisms by which clinical hypnosis can reduce symptoms and enhance care.

This is followed by an important article by Drs. McKernan and Walsh (2023). They discuss ways to enhance connections between clinicians and research in clinical hypnosis practice. The authors note that there exists imbalances between hypnosis research evidence and the practices reported by clinicians. Potential areas for improvement include training in increasing clinician competency development in the use of hypnosis with diverse populations, monitoring, and inquiry of adverse events in clinical practice, and greater integration of research evidence in teaching clinical hypnosis.

Additional commentary is provided by Dr. McCann (2023) and adds to our understanding of the need to bridge research and practice of clinical hypnosis. The most common approach to hypnotherapy found in the lead article was Ericksonian, followed by hypnotic relaxation therapy, and traditional hypnosis. However, only a minority of respondents reported using evidence-based practice approach to clinical hypnosis. This is a concerning inconsistency, as the evidence base for clinical hypnosis has rapidly expanded in the past 20 years (Elkins, 2016). More emphasis is needed on evidence-based practice and hypnosis research in clinical hypnosis workshops, books, and trainings.

The commentary by Hasan and Vasant (2023) highlights the new reality of hypnotherapy being delivered by teletherapy technology. The use of teletherapy has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and the remote delivery of clinical hypnosis has been expanding. Clinicians have adapted to deliver hypnotherapy using teletherapy technology and clinical hypnosis researchers have similarly adapted to conduct clinical trials using video technology or phone delivered hypnotic inductions. It seems very likely that remotely delivered hypnotherapy services will be increasing in the future. There is a need for research to explore and compare face-to-face delivered hypnotherapy to the use of remote technology and use of video platforms.

Overall, this issue of IJCEH is both informative and thought-provoking. It informs us of the current practices, beliefs, and experiences of clinicians. It prompts deeper consideration of the importance of integration of research findings into clinical practice and the gap that exists between practitioners and the expanding evidence base for clinical hypnosis applications. Further, the new reality of hypnosis teletherapy is changing options for how clinical hypnosis is delivered and perceived. Clearly, more research is needed to more fully understand the needs of clinicians and clinical hypnosis training needs more emphasis on integration of empirical research and the expanding knowledge base of applications and approaches to clinical hypnosis.