Benchmarking of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in efficacy and effectiveness studies-How do exclusion criteria affect treatment outcome?

Publikationstyp:
Zeitschriftenaufsatz
Metadaten:
Autoren
  • Amrei C Schindler
  • Wolfgang Hiller
  • Michael Witthoeft
Autoren-URL
https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=fis-test-1&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:000299430500003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL
DOI
10.1080/10503307.2011.602750
eISSN
1468-4381
Externe Identifier
  • Clarivate Analytics Document Solution ID: 880TN
  • PubMed Identifier: 21793689
ISSN
1050-3307
Ausgabe der Veröffentlichung
6
Zeitschrift
PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH
Schlüsselwörter
  • cognitive behavior therapy
  • depression
  • outcome research
  • benchmarking
  • exclusion criteria
Paginierung
644 - 657
Datum der Veröffentlichung
2011
Status
Published
Titel
Benchmarking of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in efficacy and effectiveness studies-How do exclusion criteria affect treatment outcome?
Sub types
  • Article
Ausgabe der Zeitschrift
21

Datenquelle: Web of Science (Lite)

Andere Metadatenquellen:
Autoren
  • Amrei C Schindler
  • Wolfgang Hiller
  • Michael Witthöft
DOI
10.1080/10503307.2011.602750
eISSN
1468-4381
ISSN
1050-3307
Ausgabe der Veröffentlichung
6
Zeitschrift
Psychotherapy Research
Sprache
en
Paginierung
644 - 657
Datum der Veröffentlichung
2011
Status
Published
Herausgeber
Informa UK Limited
Herausgeber URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2011.602750
Datum der Datenerfassung
2019
Titel
Benchmarking of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in efficacy and effectiveness studies—How do exclusion criteria affect treatment outcome?
Ausgabe der Zeitschrift
21

Datenquelle: Crossref

Abstract
<h4>Objective</h4>Little is known about how exclusion criteria applied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affect the transfer of psychotherapy outcome research to naturalistic settings. This study evaluated the effects of naturalistic depression therapies and benchmarked them with published RCTs.<h4>Method</h4>Commonly used exclusion criteria were applied to n=338 depressive patients receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy. Outcomes of the resulting subsample eligible for RCTs were compared to those reported in RCTs.<h4>Results</h4>Treatment outcomes of the total sample (d=1.16) and the subsample eligible for RCTs (d=1.15) were highly similar. Therapy outcome was worse than in high-quality RCTs (d=1.39).<h4>Conclusions</h4>No systematic bias was demonstrated due to patient selection criteria that are typically applied in RCTs. The comparability of psychotherapies conducted in RCTs and in real-world settings might be underestimated. Conclusions concerning the improvement of therapies in naturalistic settings are discussed.
Addresses
  • Department of Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Germany. schindam@uni-mainz.de
Autoren
  • Amrei C Schindler
  • Wolfgang Hiller
  • Michael Witthöft
DOI
10.1080/10503307.2011.602750
eISSN
1468-4381
Externe Identifier
  • PubMed Identifier: 21793689
Open access
false
ISSN
1050-3307
Ausgabe der Veröffentlichung
6
Zeitschrift
Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research
Schlüsselwörter
  • Humans
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Depressive Disorder
  • Dysthymic Disorder
  • Patient Selection
  • Adult
  • Benchmarking
  • Female
  • Male
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Sprache
eng
Medium
Print-Electronic
Online publication date
2011
Paginierung
644 - 657
Datum der Veröffentlichung
2011
Status
Published
Datum der Datenerfassung
2011
Titel
Benchmarking of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in efficacy and effectiveness studies--how do exclusion criteria affect treatment outcome?
Sub types
  • Journal Article
Ausgabe der Zeitschrift
21

Datenquelle: Europe PubMed Central

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how exclusion criteria applied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affect the transfer of psychotherapy outcome research to naturalistic settings. This study evaluated the effects of naturalistic depression therapies and benchmarked them with published RCTs. METHOD: Commonly used exclusion criteria were applied to n=338 depressive patients receiving cognitive-behavioral therapy. Outcomes of the resulting subsample eligible for RCTs were compared to those reported in RCTs. RESULTS: Treatment outcomes of the total sample (d=1.16) and the subsample eligible for RCTs (d=1.15) were highly similar. Therapy outcome was worse than in high-quality RCTs (d=1.39). CONCLUSIONS: No systematic bias was demonstrated due to patient selection criteria that are typically applied in RCTs. The comparability of psychotherapies conducted in RCTs and in real-world settings might be underestimated. Conclusions concerning the improvement of therapies in naturalistic settings are discussed.
Autoren
  • Amrei C Schindler
  • Wolfgang Hiller
  • Michael Witthöft
Autoren-URL
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793689
DOI
10.1080/10503307.2011.602750
eISSN
1468-4381
Ausgabe der Veröffentlichung
6
Zeitschrift
Psychother Res
Schlüsselwörter
  • Adult
  • Benchmarking
  • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
  • Depressive Disorder
  • Dysthymic Disorder
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Patient Selection
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Treatment Outcome
Sprache
eng
Country
England
Paginierung
644 - 657
Datum der Veröffentlichung
2011
Status
Published
Datum, an dem der Datensatz öffentlich gemacht wurde
2012
Titel
Benchmarking of cognitive-behavioral therapy for depression in efficacy and effectiveness studies--how do exclusion criteria affect treatment outcome?
Sub types
  • Journal Article
Ausgabe der Zeitschrift
21

Datenquelle: PubMed

Beziehungen:
Eigentum von

Werkzeuge