ArticleJournal of abnormal child psychology2020
Modeling Treatment-Related Decision-Making Using Applied Behavioral Economics: Caregiver Perspectives in Temporally-Extended Behavioral Treatments.
Article in Journal of abnormal child psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Twenty-five years of simulated demand: A bibliometric and systematic review of hypothetical drug purchase tasks.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026Pooled it
- A Family-Centered Care Approach to Behavior-Analytic Assessment and Intervention.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- Social media sites users' choice between utilitarian and informational reinforcers assessed using temporal discounting.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Applying Mixed-Effects Modeling to Behavioral Economic Demand: An Introduction.Perspectives on behavior science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence-based behavioral therapies for children with disruptive and challenging behavior rarely yield immediate improvements in behavior. For caregivers participating in behavioral therapies, the benefits from these efforts are seldom visible until after substantial time commitments. Delays associated with relief from challenging behavior (i.e., improved behavior) can influence how caregivers decide to respond to instances of problem behavior, and in turn, their continued commitment (i.e., integrity, adherence) to treatments that require long-term implementation to produce improvements in child behavior. This study applied delay discounting methods to evaluate how delays affected caregiver preferences related to options for managing their child's behavior. Specifically, methods were designed to evaluate the degree to which caregiver preferences for a more efficacious, recommended approach was affected by delays (i.e., numbers of weeks in treatment). That is, methods evaluated at which point caregivers opted to disregard the optimal, delayed strategy and instead elected to pursue suboptimal, immediate strategies. Results indicated that caregivers regularly discounted the value of the more efficacious treatment, electing to pursue suboptimal approaches when delays associated with the optimal approach grew larger. Caregivers demonstrated similar patterns of suboptimal choice across both clinical (i.e., intervention) and non-clinical (i.e., monetary) types of decisions. These findings are consistent with research that has highlighted temporal preferences as an individual factor that may be relevant to caregiver adherence to long-term evidence-based treatments and encourage the incorporation of behavioral economic methods to better understand caregiver decision-making.
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.