Lara Lenz, Hans-Helmut König, Melanie Leitner, André Hajek
{"title":"门诊心理保健中患有抑郁或焦虑的成年人的治疗偏好及其决定因素：系统回顾。","authors":"Lara Lenz, Hans-Helmut König, Melanie Leitner, André Hajek","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.10849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accommodation of treatment preferences is known to improve treatment outcomes and increase patient satisfaction, and is further advised in several national guidelines.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to systematically review studies that elicited treatment preferences and related determinants among adults with depressive or anxiety disorder for out-patient mental healthcare.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024546311). Studies were retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included studies of all types that assessed treatment preferences of adults with depressive or anxiety disorder for out-patient care. Extracted data on preferences and determinants were summarised and categorised. Preferences were categorised into treatment approaches, psychotherapy delivery and setting, and psychotherapy parameters. Study quality was assessed with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included in the review. Preferences examined related to treatment approaches (<i>n</i> = 13), psychotherapy delivery and setting (<i>n</i> = 10), and psychotherapy parameters (<i>n</i> = 7). High heterogeneity in statistical methods and preference types restricted the derivation of robust conclusions, but tendencies toward a preference for psychotherapy (compared with medication), and particularly individual and face-to-face therapy, were observed. Regarding determinants, results were highly diverse and many findings were derived from single studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our review synthesised evidence on treatment preferences and related determinants in out-patient mental healthcare. Results showed considerable heterogeneity regarding preference types, determinants and statistical methods. We highly recommend to develop and use standardised instruments to assess treatment preferences. Care providers should consider preference variance among patients, and provide individualised care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 6","pages":"e229"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Treatment preferences and their determinants among adults with depression or anxiety in out-patient mental healthcare: systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Lara Lenz, Hans-Helmut König, Melanie Leitner, André Hajek\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjo.2025.10849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Accommodation of treatment preferences is known to improve treatment outcomes and increase patient satisfaction, and is further advised in several national guidelines.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to systematically review studies that elicited treatment preferences and related determinants among adults with depressive or anxiety disorder for out-patient mental healthcare.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024546311). Studies were retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included studies of all types that assessed treatment preferences of adults with depressive or anxiety disorder for out-patient care. Extracted data on preferences and determinants were summarised and categorised. Preferences were categorised into treatment approaches, psychotherapy delivery and setting, and psychotherapy parameters. Study quality was assessed with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included in the review. Preferences examined related to treatment approaches (<i>n</i> = 13), psychotherapy delivery and setting (<i>n</i> = 10), and psychotherapy parameters (<i>n</i> = 7). High heterogeneity in statistical methods and preference types restricted the derivation of robust conclusions, but tendencies toward a preference for psychotherapy (compared with medication), and particularly individual and face-to-face therapy, were observed. Regarding determinants, results were highly diverse and many findings were derived from single studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our review synthesised evidence on treatment preferences and related determinants in out-patient mental healthcare. Results showed considerable heterogeneity regarding preference types, determinants and statistical methods. We highly recommend to develop and use standardised instruments to assess treatment preferences. Care providers should consider preference variance among patients, and provide individualised care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"volume\":\"11 6\",\"pages\":\"e229\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10849\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10849","RegionNum":3,"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
摘要
背景：众所周知，调整治疗偏好可以改善治疗结果并提高患者满意度，并且在一些国家指南中得到进一步建议。目的：本研究的目的是系统地回顾有关成人抑郁或焦虑障碍门诊心理保健的治疗偏好和相关决定因素的研究。方法：系统评价在PROSPERO注册（CRD42024546311）。研究检索自Web of Science、PubMed、CINAHL和PsycINFO。我们纳入了所有类型的研究，这些研究评估了患有抑郁症或焦虑症的成年人对门诊护理的治疗偏好。提取的关于偏好和决定因素的数据进行总结和分类。偏好分为治疗方法、心理治疗的提供和设置以及心理治疗参数。采用混合方法评价工具评价研究质量。结果：本综述纳入了19项研究。研究的偏好与治疗方法（n = 13）、心理治疗的传递和设置（n = 10）以及心理治疗参数（n = 7）有关。统计方法和偏好类型的高度异质性限制了强有力结论的推导，但观察到倾向于心理治疗（与药物相比），特别是个体和面对面治疗。关于决定因素，结果是高度多样化的，许多发现来自单一的研究。结论：我们的综述综合了门诊心理保健治疗偏好和相关决定因素的证据。结果显示，在偏好类型、决定因素和统计方法方面存在相当大的异质性。我们强烈建议开发和使用标准化的工具来评估治疗偏好。护理提供者应考虑患者的偏好差异，并提供个性化护理。
Treatment preferences and their determinants among adults with depression or anxiety in out-patient mental healthcare: systematic review.
Background: Accommodation of treatment preferences is known to improve treatment outcomes and increase patient satisfaction, and is further advised in several national guidelines.
Aims: The aim of this study was to systematically review studies that elicited treatment preferences and related determinants among adults with depressive or anxiety disorder for out-patient mental healthcare.
Method: The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024546311). Studies were retrieved from Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We included studies of all types that assessed treatment preferences of adults with depressive or anxiety disorder for out-patient care. Extracted data on preferences and determinants were summarised and categorised. Preferences were categorised into treatment approaches, psychotherapy delivery and setting, and psychotherapy parameters. Study quality was assessed with the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool.
Results: Nineteen studies were included in the review. Preferences examined related to treatment approaches (n = 13), psychotherapy delivery and setting (n = 10), and psychotherapy parameters (n = 7). High heterogeneity in statistical methods and preference types restricted the derivation of robust conclusions, but tendencies toward a preference for psychotherapy (compared with medication), and particularly individual and face-to-face therapy, were observed. Regarding determinants, results were highly diverse and many findings were derived from single studies.
Conclusions: Our review synthesised evidence on treatment preferences and related determinants in out-patient mental healthcare. Results showed considerable heterogeneity regarding preference types, determinants and statistical methods. We highly recommend to develop and use standardised instruments to assess treatment preferences. Care providers should consider preference variance among patients, and provide individualised care.
期刊介绍：
Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
