ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2018
Clinicians have several therapeutic relationships and patients only one: The effect on their assessments of relationships.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discovery awareness for staff supporting individuals with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour: is it helpful and does it increase self-efficacy?International journal of developmental disabilities · 2019Article
- Clinicians have several therapeutic relationships and patients only one: The effect on their assessments of relationships.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLittle attention has been given to the common assessment problem that clinicians assess outcomes of several patients and may rate them in comparison to one another, whereas patients assess only their own outcomes without any comparison. We explored empirically whether this would lead to a greater variability of clinician ratings as compared to patient ratings.
methodsData from two independent samples in which clinicians and patients, using consistent instruments, rated their therapeutic relationships. We present descriptive statistics of variability and intracluster correlation coefficients.
resultsThe Helping Alliance Scale was completed at baseline and follow-up by 20 clinicians and 103 patients in an observational study and by 88 clinicians and 431 patients in a trial. Patients tended to rate their relationship 5-10% more highly than their clinicians, but with 50-100% more variability. Intraclinician Helping Alliance Scale ratings were more correlated than those by patients (intracluster correlation coefficients 0.3-0.7 vs. 0.0-0.2).
conclusionContrary to our assumption, clinicians' ratings of therapeutic relationships were in both samples less variable than those of their patients. When clinicians rate outcomes of several patients, a cluster effect of ratings may have to be considered in the design and analysis.
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.