ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2008
When programs benefit some people more than others: tests of differential service effectiveness.
Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Work reintegration for veterans with mental disorders: a systematic literature review to inform research.Physical therapy · 2013Pooled it
- Who benefits from supported employment: a meta-analytic study.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2011Pooled it
- Intersectional perspectives on the employment rate in Supported Employment for people with psychiatric, neuropsychiatric, or intellectual disabilities: A scoping review.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2023Article
- Are Single-Item Global Ratings Useful for Assessing Health Status?Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2015Article
- Profiles of disability among adults with bipolar spectrum disorders.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Practitioners need to know for whom evidence-based services are most or least effective, but few services research studies provide this information. Using data from a randomized controlled comparison of supported employment findings for two multi-service psychiatric rehabilitation programs, we illustrate and compare procedures for measuring program-by-client characteristic interactions depicting differential program effectiveness, and then illustrate how a significant program-by-client interaction can explain overall program differences in service effectiveness. Interaction analyses based on cluster analysis-identified sample subgroups appear to provide statistically powerful and meaningful hypothesis tests that can aid in the interpretation of main effect findings and help to refine program theory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.