Charles B. Bennett , Emma K. Toevs , Abby Angus , Rebecca Krawczak , Christopher J. Trentacosta , Divya Jagadeesh , Claire S. Tomlinson , Oliver Lindhiem
{"title":"客户偏好对治疗满意度、完成度和临床结果影响的荟萃分析:10年更新","authors":"Charles B. Bennett , Emma K. Toevs , Abby Angus , Rebecca Krawczak , Christopher J. Trentacosta , Divya Jagadeesh , Claire S. Tomlinson , Oliver Lindhiem","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The current meta-analysis sought to provide a 10-year update to a previously published meta-analysis (<span><span>Lindhiem et al., 2014</span></span>) focusing on the effects of patient preference or active choice on treatment satisfaction (<em>k</em> = 25), treatment completion (<em>k</em> = 27), and clinical outcome (<em>k</em> = 46) in the treatment of psychological and medical conditions. A literature search identified 26 new randomized controlled trials that were published over the past 10 years. These new studies, when combined with the studies from the original meta-analysis, yielded a total of 59 articles describing 60 studies. The overall effect sizes were similar to the original meta-analysis, with small effects being observed for treatment satisfaction (ES<sub>d</sub> = 0.26; <em>p</em> < .001), completion (ES<sub>OR</sub> = 1.30; ES<sub>d</sub> = 0.14; <em>p</em> < .001), and outcome (ES<sub>d</sub> = 0.14; <em>p</em> < .001). Also similar to the original meta-analysis, these effects were generally consistent across moderators, with the exception of the condition being treated. Individuals with depression who made an active choice or otherwise received their preferred treatment were more likely to complete treatment compared to treatments for other presenting problems. Over the past 10 years, research on patient preference has expanded to new psychological and medical conditions, and new studies frequently included a psychoeducation component (i.e., informed choice). Study findings highlight the potential benefit of assessing patient preference and shared decision making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 102644"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis on the effects of client preferences on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: A 10-year update\",\"authors\":\"Charles B. Bennett , Emma K. Toevs , Abby Angus , Rebecca Krawczak , Christopher J. Trentacosta , Divya Jagadeesh , Claire S. Tomlinson , Oliver Lindhiem\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102644\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The current meta-analysis sought to provide a 10-year update to a previously published meta-analysis (<span><span>Lindhiem et al., 2014</span></span>) focusing on the effects of patient preference or active choice on treatment satisfaction (<em>k</em> = 25), treatment completion (<em>k</em> = 27), and clinical outcome (<em>k</em> = 46) in the treatment of psychological and medical conditions. A literature search identified 26 new randomized controlled trials that were published over the past 10 years. These new studies, when combined with the studies from the original meta-analysis, yielded a total of 59 articles describing 60 studies. The overall effect sizes were similar to the original meta-analysis, with small effects being observed for treatment satisfaction (ES<sub>d</sub> = 0.26; <em>p</em> < .001), completion (ES<sub>OR</sub> = 1.30; ES<sub>d</sub> = 0.14; <em>p</em> < .001), and outcome (ES<sub>d</sub> = 0.14; <em>p</em> < .001). Also similar to the original meta-analysis, these effects were generally consistent across moderators, with the exception of the condition being treated. Individuals with depression who made an active choice or otherwise received their preferred treatment were more likely to complete treatment compared to treatments for other presenting problems. Over the past 10 years, research on patient preference has expanded to new psychological and medical conditions, and new studies frequently included a psychoeducation component (i.e., informed choice). Study findings highlight the potential benefit of assessing patient preference and shared decision making.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"121 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102644\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825001114\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825001114","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Meta-analysis on the effects of client preferences on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: A 10-year update
The current meta-analysis sought to provide a 10-year update to a previously published meta-analysis (Lindhiem et al., 2014) focusing on the effects of patient preference or active choice on treatment satisfaction (k = 25), treatment completion (k = 27), and clinical outcome (k = 46) in the treatment of psychological and medical conditions. A literature search identified 26 new randomized controlled trials that were published over the past 10 years. These new studies, when combined with the studies from the original meta-analysis, yielded a total of 59 articles describing 60 studies. The overall effect sizes were similar to the original meta-analysis, with small effects being observed for treatment satisfaction (ESd = 0.26; p < .001), completion (ESOR = 1.30; ESd = 0.14; p < .001), and outcome (ESd = 0.14; p < .001). Also similar to the original meta-analysis, these effects were generally consistent across moderators, with the exception of the condition being treated. Individuals with depression who made an active choice or otherwise received their preferred treatment were more likely to complete treatment compared to treatments for other presenting problems. Over the past 10 years, research on patient preference has expanded to new psychological and medical conditions, and new studies frequently included a psychoeducation component (i.e., informed choice). Study findings highlight the potential benefit of assessing patient preference and shared decision making.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.