TABLE 2.

Comparative strengths and limitations of basic support and EBT-inclusive models.

	Strengths	Limitations
Basic support models	• Greater participant freedom in meaning-making • Protective of participant autonomy • Less credentialed labor needed • Potential cost savings due to fewer non-medicine session hours	• Missed opportunity for added efficacy • Interventions less operationalized • Staff may be undertrained for challenging clinical and ethical boundary events • Staff not grounded in explicit theory of change may introduce their own • May rely on untested assumption of an “inner healing intelligence”
EBT-inclusive models	• Potential for greater efficacy • Preexisting evidentiary basis • More developed framework for training therapists • Better operationalization of interventions • May require more credentialed staff who can better respond to clinical and ethical challenges • Borrows legitimacy from more established therapies • Provides a sense of competence to PAP-naïve therapists	• Narrowed conceptualization of benefit • Pressure to conform outcomes to predetermined theory of change • Potential invalidation of participant treatment experiences • Possible harm from therapists unprepared for full range of clinical events • Therapists may need to learn new theoretical orientation • Adoption of new orientation may disrupt therapists’ authentic presence • May disregard therapists’ prior expertise • Limits potential to evaluate contributions of various mechanisms of change to efficacy • Unclear if established efficacy of EBTs is carried over into PAP treatment

Basic support models are those that do not incorporate elements of extrinsic, non-psychedelic evidence-based therapies. EBT-inclusive models are those that do.