Self-reports vs clinician ratings of efficacies of psychotherapies for depression: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Clara Miguel, Mathias Harrer, Eirini Karyotaki, Constantin Yves Plessen, Marketa Ciharova, Toshi A Furukawa, Ioana A Cristea, Pim Cuijpers
{"title":"Self-reports vs clinician ratings of efficacies of psychotherapies for depression: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.","authors":"Clara Miguel, Mathias Harrer, Eirini Karyotaki, Constantin Yves Plessen, Marketa Ciharova, Toshi A Furukawa, Ioana A Cristea, Pim Cuijpers","doi":"10.1017/S2045796025000095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The comparability between self-reports and clinician-rated scales for measuring depression following treatment has been a long-standing debate, with studies finding mixed results. While the use of self-reports in psychotherapy trials is very common, it has been widely assumed that these tools pose a validity threat when masking of participants is not possible. We conducted a meta-analysis across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapy for depression to examine if treatment effect estimates obtained via self-reports differ from clinician-rated outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified studies from a living database of psychotherapies for depression (updated to 1 January 2023). We included RCTs measuring depression at post-treatment with both a self-report and a clinician-rated scale. As our main model, we ran a multilevel hierarchical meta-analysis, resulting in a pooled differential effect size (Δ<i>g</i>) between self-reports and clinician ratings. Moderators of this difference were explored through multimodel inference analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 91 trials (283 effect sizes) were included. In our main model, we found that self-reports produced smaller effect size estimates compared to clinician-rated instruments (Δ<i>g</i><i>=</i> 0.12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.21). This difference was very similar when only including trials with masked clinicians (Δ<i>g</i><i>=</i> 0.10; 95% CI: 0.00-0.20). However, it was more pronounced for unmasked clinical ratings (Δ<i>g</i><i>=</i> 0.20; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.43) and when trials targeted specific population groups (e.g., perinatal depression) (Δ<i>g</i><i>=</i> 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.32). Effect sizes between self-reports and clinicians were identical in trials targeting general adults (Δ<i>g</i><i>=</i> 0.00; 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.14).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Self-report instruments did not overestimate the effects of psychotherapy for depression and were generally more conservative than clinician assessments. Patients' perception of improvement should not be considered less valid by default, despite the inherent challenge of masking in psychotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11787,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","volume":"34 ","pages":"e15"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11886967/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796025000095","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The comparability between self-reports and clinician-rated scales for measuring depression following treatment has been a long-standing debate, with studies finding mixed results. While the use of self-reports in psychotherapy trials is very common, it has been widely assumed that these tools pose a validity threat when masking of participants is not possible. We conducted a meta-analysis across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychotherapy for depression to examine if treatment effect estimates obtained via self-reports differ from clinician-rated outcomes.

Methods: We identified studies from a living database of psychotherapies for depression (updated to 1 January 2023). We included RCTs measuring depression at post-treatment with both a self-report and a clinician-rated scale. As our main model, we ran a multilevel hierarchical meta-analysis, resulting in a pooled differential effect size (Δg) between self-reports and clinician ratings. Moderators of this difference were explored through multimodel inference analyses.

Results: A total of 91 trials (283 effect sizes) were included. In our main model, we found that self-reports produced smaller effect size estimates compared to clinician-rated instruments (Δg= 0.12; 95% CI: 0.03-0.21). This difference was very similar when only including trials with masked clinicians (Δg= 0.10; 95% CI: 0.00-0.20). However, it was more pronounced for unmasked clinical ratings (Δg= 0.20; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.43) and when trials targeted specific population groups (e.g., perinatal depression) (Δg= 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08-0.32). Effect sizes between self-reports and clinicians were identical in trials targeting general adults (Δg= 0.00; 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.14).

Conclusions: Self-report instruments did not overestimate the effects of psychotherapy for depression and were generally more conservative than clinician assessments. Patients' perception of improvement should not be considered less valid by default, despite the inherent challenge of masking in psychotherapy.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
1.20%
发文量
121
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences is a prestigious international, peer-reviewed journal that has been publishing in Open Access format since 2020. Formerly known as Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale and established in 1992 by Michele Tansella, the journal prioritizes highly relevant and innovative research articles and systematic reviews in the areas of public mental health and policy, mental health services and system research, as well as epidemiological and social psychiatry. Join us in advancing knowledge and understanding in these critical fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信