This article is a response to Nordén and Norlander's 'Absence of Positive Results for Flexible Assertive Community Treatment. What is the next approach?'[1], 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) [2] 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.

ACT, Community care, Fact, Flexible ACT, RACT, Resource ACT
hdl.handle.net/1765/87628
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Van Veldhuizen, R, Delespaul, P.A.E.G, Kroon, H, & Mulder, C.L. (2015). Flexible ACT & resource-group ACT: Different working procedures which can supplement and strengthen each other. A response. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 11(1), 12–15. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/87628