Trial reportClinical psychology & psychotherapy
Heterogeneity of Treatment Outcomes Across Therapists and Sites in a Randomized Multicentre Psychotherapy Trial.
Trial report in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. 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.
- From Monoamines to Systems Psychiatry: Rewiring Depression Science and Care (1960s-2025).Biomedicines · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEstablishing robust evidence for psychotherapeutic treatment efficacy is crucial in evidence-based medicine for mental disorders. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are key to minimizing biases such as selection effects and baseline imbalances between study groups. However, another challenge to robust evidence in psychotherapy research is heterogeneity in treatment outcomes due to therapists and clinical sites. While this has been frequently observed in naturalistic settings, therapist- and site-related heterogeneity in treatment outcomes has been understudied in RCTs.
methodThe present study addresses this gap in a secondary data analysis, examining how therapists and clinical sites differ in treatment outcomes and differential/average treatment effect (i.e., outcome differences between treatment groups) within a large, multicentre RCT. We analysed data from 255 patients with chronic depression treated by 79 therapists in nine study sites, that received two different active psychotherapeutic interventions.
resultsTherapist- and site-related variances in treatment outcomes appeared relatively small, accounting for 1.1% [0.0%, 8.1%] and 1.7% [0.0%, 9.9%] of the total variance, respectively. Notably, site-related variance in differential treatment effects appeared relatively larger at 12.5% [0.1%, 44.4%]. These variances were only partially explained by patient or therapist characteristics.
conclusionWhile the sample size only allowed to estimate the variance contributions of therapists and sites with high uncertainty, the relative size comparison points to the importance of considering site heterogeneity in evaluating RCTs' differential treatment effects. Further research on site characteristics' impact could enhance understanding of psychotherapeutic treatment efficacy across diverse contexts.
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.