Trial reportJournal of consulting and clinical psychology2018
Treatment expectancy and working alliance in pharmacotherapy as predictors of outcomes in complicated grief.
Trial report in Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNonspecific factors, such as treatment outcome expectancy and working alliance, can influence treatment outcome. No studies to date have examined the role of expectancy and alliance on pharmacotherapy outcomes in individuals with complicated grief (CG).
methodThis secondary analysis of a larger randomized, control trial (RCT) examined the relationship between pharmacotherapy expectancy and alliance on treatment outcome in adults with CG who were participating in a multisite, double-blind, RCT examining the efficacy of citalopram and complicated grief treatment (CGT). Participants (n = 202) were randomized to one of four treatment conditions: citalopram (CIT), placebo (PBO), CGT + citalopram (CGT + CIT), or CGT + placebo (CGT + PBO).
resultsPharmacotherapy outcome expectancy and working alliance were higher among individuals randomized to CGT + CIT and CGT + PBO compared with CIT or PBO without CGT. Pharmacotherapy outcome expectancy was higher at Week 2 among individuals who ultimately responded to treatment compared with those who did not and among those who remained in treatment compared with those who dropped out. In contrast, working alliance did not correlate with dropout or treatment outcomes in pharmacotherapy.
conclusionsExpectancy for medication was higher among individuals randomized to receive CGT. Clinicians should assess symptoms and expectancies in the first weeks of treatment because these could be early markers of drop out and treatment response. (PsycINFO Database Record
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.