Well, those of us who routinely use any of a variety of uncovering techniques when working with our clients do not need convincing of the efficacy of this approach. It is so much more reliable for the client than just taking a bet on Direct Suggestion alone. However, it's always nice to know that the academic world is catching up to us.

A 2005 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis reports that in a trial of five Direct Suggestion sessions over 2 months, 3 cases under investigation of psychogenic dermatitis yielded results that were “unappreciable and unsuccessful.”

The same patients subsequently were treated using ideomotor questioning, regression to onset and reframing - followed by Direct Suggestion; all of course under hypnosis. This time around the approach proved an effective treatment (no cases of relapse after 1 year of checking).

What can we note from this?

• Once again, it pays to do the “uncovering work.” Don't take short cuts!

• This could well have been a report of the “hypnosis doesn't work” category if the trial had stopped at the Direct Suggestion phase as many trials have. All reports of hypnosis not working have to be carefully read to see what was actually done while the client was in hypnosis. Because of course, it's not the hypnosis per se that counts, it's the work that is done while the client is in hypnosis.