Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42344007›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of public health2026

Large trials of psychosocial interventions: examples from individual placement and support.

Justin D Metcalfe, Kim T Mueser, Robert E Drake

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Justin D MetcalfeWestat, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Kim T MueserBoston University, Boston, MA, United States.
Robert E DrakeColumbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Large demonstration projects for health interventions often use randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test the effectiveness of interventions implemented at larger scales, serving as crucial contributors to policy and funding decisions. Such trials are subject to limitations common to all RCTs, but their size and importance magnify the costs of failure to satisfy the assumptions for valid causal inference and generalizability. We examine common reasons for such threats to validity. Methods: We examined large (N > 1,000) IPS RCTs for aspects of design and execution that undermine the validity of their results. Results: We identified three large IPS RCTs and identified threats to validity associated with treatment adherence and attrition. Conclusion: Large trials should rely on pilot studies to ensure that difficulties with recruitment, implementation of and participation in interventions, and follow-up measurement do not compromise study validity; intervention fidelity and participation should be measured to permit evaluation of study success. Funders should require and support the use of pilot studies and other prior research to justify the introduction of an intervention to a population and anticipate potential threats to validity.

Indexed as

Psychosocial InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansPilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsResearch Designindividual placement and supportpilotspsychosocial interventionrandomized controlled trialsvalidity

Identifiers

PMID42344007
PMCPMC13286859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.