Responsible practice reporting
IEMT case-study submission guidelines
A case study should document what happened accurately enough for another practitioner to understand, question and learn from it. It is not an advertisement, a testimonial or proof that IEMT caused an outcome.
Before you write
- Obtain separate, explicit written consent for publication. Consent to therapy is not consent to publish.
- Explain that online material may be copied, indexed and remain identifiable despite anonymisation efforts.
- Remove or alter non-essential details that could identify the client, relatives, employers, schools or locations.
- Confirm that the work was within your competence, insurance and professional scope.
- Record safeguarding concerns, referrals, adverse events, deterioration and unresolved problems, not only improvements.
- Do not delay medical, psychiatric or emergency assessment in order to complete an IEMT intervention or case report.
Required structure
Use the following headings. Write plainly, distinguish observation from interpretation and include information that challenges your preferred explanation.
1. Identification
Title and authorship
Use a factual title. List the author, qualifications, role, affiliation, conflicts of interest and the date prepared.
2. Ethics
Consent and confidentiality
State how publication consent was obtained, how identity was protected and whether additional guardian or organisational permission was required.
3. Context
Client and presenting issue
Include only relevant demographics, duration, impact, client goals, previous interventions, current care and who made any diagnosis.
4. Baseline
Assessment and measures
Record a pre-intervention baseline. Use validated measures when suitable and state their limits. Define any rating scale before reporting change.
5. Intervention
What was actually done
State session number, duration, setting, target selection, IEMT patterns used, significant adaptations, concurrent work and practitioner supervision.
6. Outcome
Change, no change and harm
Report immediate and follow-up findings, unchanged problems, relapse, dropout, adverse events and whether the client continued other care.
7. Interpretation
Discussion and alternatives
Separate facts from hypotheses. Consider expectancy, relationship, regression to the mean, spontaneous change and other treatment.
8. Limits
What cannot be concluded
State explicitly that a single uncontrolled case cannot prove causation, efficacy, mechanism, generalisability or superiority.
9. Sources
References and declarations
Cite reliable sources consistently. Declare funding, competing interests, assistance, supervision and any use of generative AI.
Language for responsible claims
| Use | Avoid |
|---|---|
| “The client reported fewer migraine days during the follow-up period.” | “IEMT treated or cured chronic migraine.” |
| “The change followed the session, but causation cannot be established.” | “The intervention caused the improvement.” |
| “The practitioner interpreted this as an identity imprint.” | “The symptom was neurologically encoded as an identity imprint.” |
| “No standardised measure was used.” | Invented, retrospective or undefined numerical outcomes. |
| “The client had previously received a diagnosis from a named professional service.” | A diagnosis made or implied outside the author’s qualifications. |
| “This case suggests a question for further study.” | “This case demonstrates that IEMT is effective for this condition.” |
Minimum outcome information
- A clearly defined baseline before the intervention.
- Number, duration and dates of sessions.
- Relevant validated measures where appropriate.
- Immediate outcome and at least one stated follow-up point.
- Problems that did not change or later returned.
- Adverse events, distress, dropout or referral.
- Medication, medical care or other therapy during the period.
- The source of every outcome: client, practitioner, relative or independent measure.
References and generative AI
- Prefer primary research, clinical guidelines and authoritative professional sources.
- Check every author, title, year, journal, DOI and URL against the original source.
- Do not cite hypothetical publications, invented references or unattributed web summaries.
- Never enter identifiable client information into a public generative-AI service.
- Declare any AI assistance used for structure, grammar, summarisation or images.
- The named author remains responsible for every fact, citation, interpretation and confidentiality decision.
Submission checklist
- Written publication consent is secured and retained.
- Identifying detail has been removed or justified.
- Author qualifications, role and conflicts are stated.
- Diagnosis is attributed to an appropriately qualified source.
- Baseline, intervention dose and follow-up are clear.
- Adverse events, non-response and concurrent care are reported.
- Causal and generalised claims have been removed.
- Every reference has been checked against the original source.
- Any generative-AI use is declared.
- The document has been proofread and supplied as an accessible Word file or tagged PDF.
Submit for review
Email the document with the subject Case Study Submission. The Association may request revision, decline publication or add an editorial note. Publication makes a report available for learning and scrutiny; it does not constitute endorsement of its clinical interpretation.