Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25189522›Full record

SynthesisClinical psychology review2014

Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis.

Oliver Lindhiem, Charles B Bennett, Christopher J Trentacosta, Caitlin McLear

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical psychology review, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
28.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 295 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Oliver LindhiemUniversity of Pittsburgh, United States. Electronic address: lindhiemoj@upmc.edu.
Charles B BennettUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center, United States.
Christopher J TrentacostaWayne State University, United States.
Caitlin McLearWayne State University, United States.
Wayne State University · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · US

Funding

Skill Acquisition/Utilization During Treatment for Childhood Behavior ProblemsK01MH093508 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI LINDHIEM, OLIVER JAMES · 2011 to 2015
$689k
NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH093508NIMH NIH HHS MH 093508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of client preferences on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome. Our search of the literature resulted in 34 empirical articles describing 32 unique clinical trials that either randomized some clients to an active choice condition (shared decision making condition or choice of treatment) or assessed client preferences. Clients who were involved in shared decision making, chose a treatment condition, or otherwise received their preferred treatment evidenced higher treatment satisfaction (ESd=.34; p<.001), increased completion rates (ESOR=1.37; ESd=.17; p<.001), and superior clinical outcome (ESd=.15; p<.0001), compared to clients who were not involved in shared decision making, did not choose a treatment condition, or otherwise did not receive their preferred treatment. Although the effect sizes are modest in magnitude, they were generally consistent across several potential moderating variables including study design (preference versus active choice), psychoeducation (informed versus uninformed), setting (inpatient versus outpatient), client diagnosis (mental health versus other), and unit of randomization (client versus provider). Our findings highlight the clinical benefit of assessing client preferences, providing treatment choices when two or more efficacious options are available, and involving clients in treatment-related decisions when treatment options are not available.

Indexed as

Patient CompliancePatient ParticipationPatient PreferencePatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeHumansCompletionOutcomePatient preferenceSatisfactionShared decision makingTreatment choice

Identifiers

PMID25189522
PMCPMC4176894
OpenAlexW2076273488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.