Trial reportThe British journal of clinical psychology2025
Predicting optimal treatment allocation for cognitive analytic-guided self-help versus cognitive behavioural-guided self-help.
Trial report in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting optimal treatment allocation for cognitive analytic-guided self-help versus cognitive behavioural-guided self-help.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesGiven the ubiquity in routine services of low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) psychological interventions, better patient selection for these brief interventions would be organizationally efficient. This study therefore sought to define who would respond best to two different types of GSH for anxiety to enable better future treatment matching.
methodsThe study used outcome data from a patient preference trial (N = 209) comparing cognitive analytic therapy-guided self-help (CAT-GSH) with cognitive behavioural therapy-guided self-help (CBT-GSH). Elastic Net regularization and Boruta random forest variable selection methods were applied. Regression models calculated the patient advantage index (PAI) to designate which GSH was likely the most effective for each patient. Outcomes were compared for those receiving their PAI-indicated optimal and non-optimal GSH.
resultsLower baseline depression and anxiety severity predicted better outcomes for both types of GSH. Patient preference status was not associated with outcome during either GSH. Sixty-three % received their model indicating optimal GSH and these had significantly higher rates of reliable and clinically significant reductions in anxiety at both post-treatment (35.9% vs. 16.6%) and follow-up (36.6% vs. 19.2%). No single patient with a large PAI had a reliable and clinically significant reduction in anxiety at post-treatment or follow-up when they did not receive their optimal GSH.
conclusionsTreatment matching algorithms have the potential to support evidenced-based treatment selection for GSH. Treatment selection and supporting patient choice needs to be integrated. Future research needs to investigate the use of the PAI for GSH treatment matching, but with larger and more balanced samples.
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.