User talk:Jrsauer/sandbox

Peer Review

Overall from my reading so far of your draft, it seems to be well laid out and accurate. One thing we talked about in our WIP session was using simpler language to make the wikipedia articles easier to understand for people with limited medical knowledge. One example of this is referencing maladaptive behaviors or maladaptive thoughts quite frequently in your therapy sections. It may be helpful to give some examples of what this means for lay people.

The area where I can possibly be the most helpful at this point is responding to your question of how to incorporate your work on the treatment section into the existing page. Here are a few suggestions:

For the lead paragraph of the treatment section, I think you could add your first sentence to the beginning of the existing paragraph, and then rework the next sentence to say that CBT and SSRIs are the mainstays of psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic therapies respectively and that they have shown effectiveness to make it flow better with your statement. I think your statement of the alternative therapies could be added to the end of the paragraph, possibly in place of the existing final sentence.

For the “Therapy” subsection, the first paragraph in the existing wikipedia text is very list oriented. I think it would be harder to incorporate your work into that paragraph. It would probably be more feasible to include your lead-in to the psychotherapeutic therapies in the smaller second paragraph. The second paragraph in the existing text is mainly just mentioning types of treatments so as long as you mentioned those treatments in your paragraph, I think you could just replace that paragraph with your paragraph on psychotherapeutic interventions. With the reworked lead-in, I think your subsections describing each treatment not already in the existing text can be added in as new, separate subsections.

For the existing cognitive behavioral therapy section, I think it would be helpful to discuss what cognitive behavioral therapy is before discussing the efficacy of the treatment. The first paragraph in the existing text would probably be better off at the end of the CBT section. I like how you introduced cognitive and behavioral therapy separately in previous sections before putting them together. I think your first two sentences could be used in the new lead paragraph for the CBT section and then the part about techniques could be incorporated into the following paragraph.

For the pharmacotherapy section, I’m not sure you need to give an overview of benzodiazepines vs. SSRIs in the introduction section. I think your commentary about benzodiazepines in your intro would be a good addition to the section on benzodiazepines, including which bz is FDA approved. As far as listing the drugs in FDA approved, you may have to make a decision about which way to go. Stylistically, the article is mostly in paragraph form without lists. If you wanted to go the list route, you could have a section about the importance and reasons for choosing FDA approved drugs and why certain drugs have been approved or not and then put your list there, which could provide context into how drugs are/should be chosen.

For the alternate treatments, I think it is good that you mentioned many of the treatments that a patient may hear about and may be considering trying. I think it would be better to focus on the alternative treatments where there is more information available, especially focusing on the risks of these treatments which would probably be most helpful for the average person. The treatments you listed that only have very limited research could probably just be briefly mentioned as treatments with little evidence of risk or efficacy with a link to the article discussing them as much of that section appears to be from one source.

As for the sections you mentioned that you intend to edit, but have not yet edited, I think in the risk factors section, the “Other” section, could use the most work. I think there is definitely room for improvement by expanding on the risk factors in certain demographics and possibly connecting that to implications for therapy. That section as it stands is essentially a random assortment of facts without much expansion or direction, and I think some work there would probably provide a good amount of value.

As far as a rating for who this page is targeted to, I think there is something for everyone. I think the pharmacologic diagnostic information is definitely helpful for providers, while the alternative therapy section is good for patients who may have heard of or are considering the treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettG72 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)