The Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions Delivered in Routine Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
-
Published:2022-10-06
Issue:1
Volume:50
Page:43-57
-
ISSN:0894-587X
-
Container-title:Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Adm Policy Ment Health
Author:
Gaskell ChrisORCID, Simmonds-Buckley MelanieORCID, Kellett StephenORCID, Stockton C., Somerville Erin, Rogerson Emily, Delgadillo JaimeORCID
Abstract
AbstractThis review presents a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of routinely delivered psychological therapies across inpatient, outpatient and University-based clinics. This was a pre-registered systematic-review of studies meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria (CRD42020175235). Eligible studies were searched in three databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo. Pre–post treatment (uncontrolled) effect sizes were calculated and pooled using random effects meta-analysis to generate effectiveness benchmarks. Moderator analyses were used to examine sources of heterogeneity in effect sizes. Overall, 252 studies (k = 298 samples) were identified, of which 223 (k = 263 samples) provided sufficient data for inclusion in meta-analysis. Results showed large pre–post treatment effects for depression [d = 0.96, (CI 0.88–1.04), p ≤ 0.001, k = 122], anxiety [d = 0.8 (CI 0.71–0.9), p ≤ 0.001, k = 69], and other outcomes [d = 1.01 (CI 0.93–1.09), p ≤ 0.001, k = 158]. This review provides support for the effectiveness of routinely delivered psychological therapy. Effectiveness benchmarks are supplied to support service evaluations across multiple settings.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,Pshychiatric Mental Health
Reference80 articles.
1. Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000). A national survey of practicing psychologists’ attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.331 2. APA. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. American Psychologist, 61, 271–285. 3. Armijo-Olivo, S., Ospina, M., da Costa, B. R., Egger, M., Saltaji, H., Fuentes, J., Ha, C., & Cummings, G. G. (2014). Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e96920. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096920 4. Balk, E. M., Earley, A., Patel, K., Trikalinos, T. A., & Dahabreh, I. J. (2012). Empirical assessment of within-arm correlation imputation in trials of continuous outcomes. Methods Research Reports, 12(13), EHC141-EF. 5. Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., Benson, L., Connell, J., Audin, K., & McGrath, G. (2001). Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.184
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|