Accuracy of therapists' predictions of outcome in internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for depression and anxiety in routine psychiatric care.
Erik Forsell, Simon Mattsson, Nils Hentati Isacsson, Viktor Kaldo
{"title":"Accuracy of therapists' predictions of outcome in internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for depression and anxiety in routine psychiatric care.","authors":"Erik Forsell, Simon Mattsson, Nils Hentati Isacsson, Viktor Kaldo","doi":"10.1037/ccp0000943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> Early identification of failing psychological treatments could be of high clinical value, but therapists themselves have been found to be bad at predicting who will benefit or not. Previous research has some methodological limitations, and therapists' predictive accuracy has never been examined in internet-delivered treatments. <b><i>Method:</i></b> Therapists providing internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for depression, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder in routine psychiatric care made outcome predictions for 897 patients during the fourth week of treatment. Therapists' accuracies were also compared to the accuracy of a simple statistical model and benchmarks for clinically acceptable/useful levels of accuracy from previous research. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Therapists were more accurate than chance, but their balanced accuracy was on average nine percentage points lower than the balanced accuracy of the statistical model (though confidence intervals often overlapped) and only in one case did the predictions reach the clinical acceptance and utility benchmarks. Therapists could predict on average 16% of the variance in outcome. Therapists were overly optimistic, predicting positive outcomes on average twice as often as they occurred. They differed in confidence in their predictions, though this did not affect how correct they were. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy-therapists can often predict treatment outcomes better than chance, but generally not as well as the statistical model, and probably not accurately enough that they would be willing to act on their predictions, or that they could be used in an adaptive treatment strategy. Our previous findings suggest that patients would benefit from statistical monitoring and prediction tools in clinical settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15447,"journal":{"name":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","volume":"93 3","pages":"176-190"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of consulting and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000943","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Early identification of failing psychological treatments could be of high clinical value, but therapists themselves have been found to be bad at predicting who will benefit or not. Previous research has some methodological limitations, and therapists' predictive accuracy has never been examined in internet-delivered treatments. Method: Therapists providing internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for depression, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder in routine psychiatric care made outcome predictions for 897 patients during the fourth week of treatment. Therapists' accuracies were also compared to the accuracy of a simple statistical model and benchmarks for clinically acceptable/useful levels of accuracy from previous research. Results: Therapists were more accurate than chance, but their balanced accuracy was on average nine percentage points lower than the balanced accuracy of the statistical model (though confidence intervals often overlapped) and only in one case did the predictions reach the clinical acceptance and utility benchmarks. Therapists could predict on average 16% of the variance in outcome. Therapists were overly optimistic, predicting positive outcomes on average twice as often as they occurred. They differed in confidence in their predictions, though this did not affect how correct they were. Conclusions: Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy-therapists can often predict treatment outcomes better than chance, but generally not as well as the statistical model, and probably not accurately enough that they would be willing to act on their predictions, or that they could be used in an adaptive treatment strategy. Our previous findings suggest that patients would benefit from statistical monitoring and prediction tools in clinical settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology® (JCCP) publishes original contributions on the following topics: the development, validity, and use of techniques of diagnosis and treatment of disordered behaviorstudies of a variety of populations that have clinical interest, including but not limited to medical patients, ethnic minorities, persons with serious mental illness, and community samplesstudies that have a cross-cultural or demographic focus and are of interest for treating behavior disordersstudies of personality and of its assessment and development where these have a clear bearing on problems of clinical dysfunction and treatmentstudies of gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation that have a clear bearing on diagnosis, assessment, and treatmentstudies of psychosocial aspects of health behaviors. Studies that focus on populations that fall anywhere within the lifespan are considered. JCCP welcomes submissions on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical–health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad clinical–scientist and practitioner audience. JCCP encourages the submission of theory–based interventions, studies that investigate mechanisms of change, and studies of the effectiveness of treatments in real-world settings. JCCP recommends that authors of clinical trials pre-register their studies with an appropriate clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu) though both registered and unregistered trials will continue to be considered at this time.