Evidence-Based Practices, and the Humanity of Mental Health: A Detailed Exploration

Mental health care stands at an intersection between science and human experience. On one hand, diagnosis and evidence-based practices offer structured, research-backed approaches to understanding and treating psychological distress. On the other, the uniqueness of individual lives, cultural contexts, and personal meaning-making challenges the idea that mental health can—or should—be reduced to standardized models.

This tension raises important questions:

• Do diagnoses capture the full complexity of human suffering?

• Can evidence-based treatments truly be universal?

• And how does colonialism continue to shape what is considered “valid” in mental health care?

The Value of Diagnosis & Evidence-Based Practices

Diagnosis and evidence-based interventions have undeniably transformed mental health care. They provide a shared language for professionals, allowing for consistency in treatment and communication. Without them, mental health risks becoming a subjective, inconsistent field with little accountability. Standardized diagnoses help people access support, accommodations, and even legal protections, especially for neurodivergent individuals or those navigating workplace discrimination.

Evidence-based practices, built on rigorous scientific studies, ensure that interventions are effective rather than based on personal opinions or unverified methods. They have led to the development of treatments like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which has been widely studied and found effective for conditions like anxiety and depression. Medication, too, has been refined through clinical trials, helping many people manage severe mental health conditions.

In this sense, diagnosis and evidence-based models are vital—they prevent harm, provide legitimacy, and ensure that mental health care remains rooted in something more than guesswork.

The Limitations of Diagnosis & Evidence-Based Practices

Despite their strengths, diagnostic categories and standardized treatments are not without flaws. Mental health does not exist in a vacuum; it is shaped by individual histories, cultures, and social structures. A strict focus on diagnostic criteria can oversimplify suffering, reducing complex emotional experiences to checklists. This is particularly evident in trauma, where many people’s experiences do not fit neatly into PTSD criteria, despite clear psychological distress.

Similarly, evidence-based practices, while rooted in research, often fail to consider diverse populations. The majority of psychological studies have historically been conducted on white, Western, cisgender men, meaning that their findings may not fully apply to women, queer individuals, people of color, or those from non-Western backgrounds.

For instance, the way depression manifests in Western societies (as sadness and withdrawal) may differ from how it appears in other cultures (as physical symptoms like fatigue or body pain). When mental health professionals rely solely on Western research, they risk misdiagnosing or misunderstanding distress in non-Western populations.

Moreover, diagnostic labels can be limiting. While they help professionals categorize symptoms, they do not always capture a person’s lived experience. A diagnosis like Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), for example, may describe patterns of emotional instability, but it does not necessarily explain why someone developed those patterns—whether due to trauma, systemic oppression, or other life circumstances.

Without acknowledging the human story behind a diagnosis, mental health care risks becoming a rigid system that focuses solely on symptoms rather than people.

The Humanity & Uniqueness of Life

Mental health is deeply personal. Healing is not a standardized process; it is shaped by relationships, cultural values, and personal journeys.

Many therapeutic approaches that prioritize humanity—such as narrative therapy, somatic work, and indigenous healing practices—do not always fit within traditional evidence-based frameworks, yet they offer profound healing for many individuals.

Consider how different cultures have long-standing traditions of communal healing. Many indigenous communities prioritize collective well-being over individual diagnosis, seeing distress as something to be addressed within the community rather than solely within an individual.

Similarly, queer and feminist approaches to mental health highlight the role of societal oppression in psychological distress, rather than framing struggles as purely internal issues. These perspectives challenge the idea that mental health should always be treated through standardized, individual-focused interventions.

The challenge, then, is to honor the scientific rigor of mental health care while also recognizing that not everything can—or should—be reduced to a diagnosis or an evidence-based protocol.

Healing is as much about relationships, meaning, and self-understanding as it is about symptom reduction.

Colonialism & The Western Standard in Mental Health

One of the biggest critiques of mainstream mental health care is its colonial roots. The field of psychology has largely been shaped by European and American perspectives, often dismissing or pathologizing non-Western ways of understanding mental health.

Many diagnostic criteria and treatment models were developed by white, cisgender men and then imposed globally, disregarding the psychological frameworks that existed in other cultures long before Western psychology became dominant.

Historically, colonial psychiatry was used as a tool of control, labeling indigenous and colonized people as “mentally unfit” when they resisted oppression. Even today, Western psychological frameworks continue to dictate what is considered “normal” or “disordered.”

For example:

• Many indigenous practices that involve connection to ancestors, dreams, or spiritual experiences have been dismissed as irrational or even psychotic within Western psychiatry.

• Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the DSM until 1973, reflecting how diagnoses can reinforce societal biases rather than objective truths.

• The use of trauma models developed in Western war contexts has often failed when applied to communities affected by colonization, poverty, or systemic violence in different cultural contexts.

Decolonizing mental health means questioning these biases and integrating diverse ways of understanding distress. It involves recognizing that mental health care cannot be one-size-fits-all and that practices need to be adapted to different cultural and social realities. It also means listening to communities that have historically been excluded from mental health research and policy-making.

Balancing the Two: Science & Humanity in Mental Health

So, how do we hold both perspectives—science and humanity—without losing the strengths of either?

The answer lies in integration.

Mental health care must remain evidence-informed but flexible enough to accommodate individual and cultural differences.

Some ways to achieve this balance include:

• Transdiagnostic Approaches: Moving beyond rigid diagnostic categories and focusing on broader patterns of distress that may not fit neatly into a single disorder.

• Narrative & Culturally Responsive Therapy: Centering the individual’s story and cultural background in treatment, rather than applying one-size-fits-all interventions.

• Trauma-Informed & Intersectional Care: Recognizing how systemic issues like racism, poverty, and gender oppression impact mental health.

• Expanding Research: Investing in studies that include diverse populations, rather than relying primarily on Western, white, male-centered research.

• Valuing Non-Western Healing Practices: Integrating indigenous and community-based approaches into mainstream mental health care.

Mental health is both a science and an art. Diagnosis and evidence-based practices provide necessary structure, but they must be applied with humility and adaptability. The future of mental health care should not be about choosing between science and humanity but about ensuring that they coexist—recognizing that healing is not just about reducing symptoms but about understanding the full depth of human experience.

Both diagnosis and evidence-based practices play a crucial role in mental health care, offering legitimacy, consistency, and access to treatment. However, their limitations—especially their colonial, Eurocentric roots—must be acknowledged and addressed.

True healing requires not just standardized approaches but also deep, relational, and culturally responsive care. Mental health is not just about fitting people into categories—it’s about meeting them where they are, honoring their lived experiences, and recognizing that healing takes many forms.

By bridging the gap between evidence and humanity, we can create a mental health system that is both scientifically sound and deeply compassionate.

---

If you're looking for therapy that values both evidence-based care and your unique lived experience, I offer trauma-informed, queer-affirmative, and intersectional therapy. My approach is rooted in both science and deep human understanding.

Book a session: https://www.cal.com/entwined-wellbeing/discoverycall

Connect on Instagram and LinkedIn @nerdypsychologist