Interesting practitioners in training in empirically supported treatments: research reviews versus case studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stewart RE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2866067 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interesting practitioners in training in empirically supported treatments: research reviews versus case studies.
Stewart Rebecca E RE Chambless Dianne L DL
Journal of clinical psychology 20100101 1
It has been repeatedly demonstrated that clinicians rely more on clinical judgment than on research findings. We hypothesized that psychologists in practice might be more open to adopting empirically supported treatments (ESTs) if outcome results were presented with a case study. Psychologists in private practice (N=742) were randomly assigned to receive a research review of data from randomized controlled trials of cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) and medication for bulimia, a case study of ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Despite a large body of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress for children and adolescents, the adoption of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in routine care is low. Objective: This implementation study aims to evaluate the dissemination of Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (TF-CBT) for children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) after child abuse and neglect (CAN) with a focus on supervision. Method: In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, the study will evaluate the implementation of TF-CBT focussing on the training of therapists including the provision of supervision. The effectiveness of specialized trauma-focused supervision will be compared to supervision as usual with respect to the successful implementation of TF-CBT for youths with PTSS administered by psychotherapists with different levels of professional experience. The primary outcome is whether the patient receives a treatment with sufficient adherence to the TF-CBT manual. The unit of randomization will be the therapists. The main outcome will be analysed using multilevel logistic regressions. Secondary outcomes will concern further patient-related (reduction of PTSS and depressive symptoms) and therapist-related (professional quality of life) variables. Additional exploratory analyses are planned. Discussion: Since the trial is designed as an implementation study, it permits naturalistic referrals to the participating therapists by patients, caregivers, child and youth welfare agencies and paediatricians. The strict primary outcome will help evaluating the role of model-based supervision in the implementation process. The explorative outcomes will evaluate whether implementation success translates into better patient outcomes. We expect that the dissemination measures will lead to a successful implementation of TF-CBT and promote sustainable structures in routine care that will remain in place after study completion and offer access to ESTs for future children and youths with a history of CAN.
| S-EPMC7747933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Modular Approach to Therapy for Children (MATCH) was developed to address the comorbidities common among clinically referred youth, with beneficial outcomes shown in 2 US randomized clinical trials, where it outperformed both usual clinical care and single disorder-specific treatments.ObjectiveTo determine whether MATCH training of clinicians would result in more use of empirically supported treatment (EST) and better clinical outcomes than usual care (UC) in the publicly funded, multidisciplinary context of New Zealand.Design, setting, and participantsThis multisite, single-blind, computer-randomized clinical effectiveness trial compared MATCH with UC in child and adolescent mental health services in 5 regions of New Zealand. Recruitment occurred from March 2014 to July 2015, and a 3-month follow-up assessment was completed by May 2016. Clinicians at participating child and adolescent mental health services were randomized (1:1) to undertake training in MATCH or to deliver UC, and young people with anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms, or disruptive behavior seeking treatment at child and adolescent mental health services were randomized (1:1) to receive MATCH or UC. Participants and research assistants were blind to allocation. Data analysis was performed from April 2016 to July 2017.InterventionsMATCH comprises EST components for flexible management of common mental health problems. UC includes case management and psychological therapies. Both can include pharmacotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThere were 3 primary outcomes: trajectory of change of clinical severity, as measured by weekly ratings on the Brief Problem Monitor (BPM); fidelity to EST content, as measured by audio recordings of therapy sessions coded using the Therapy Integrity in Evidence Based Interventions: Observational Coding System; and efficiency of service delivery, as measured by duration of therapy (days) and clinician time (minutes).ResultsThe study included 65 clinicians (mean age, 38.7 years; range, 23.0-64.0 years; 54 female [83%]; MATCH, 32 clinicians; UC, 33 clinicians) and 206 young people (mean age, 11.2 years; range 7.0-14.0 years; 122 female [61%]; MATCH, 102 patients; UC, 104 patients). For the BPM total ratings for parents, there was a mean (SE) slope of -1.04 (0.14) (1-year change, -6.12) in the MATCH group vs -1.04 (0.10) (1-year change, -6.17) in the UC group (effect size, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.27 to 0.28; P = .96). For the BPM total for youths, the mean (SE) slope was -0.74 (0.15) (1-year change, -4.35) in the MATCH group vs -0.73 (0.10) (1-year change, -4.32) in the UC group (effect size, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.26; P = .97). Primary analyses (intention-to-treat) showed no difference in clinical outcomes or efficiency despite significantly higher fidelity to EST content in the MATCH group (58 coded sessions; mean [SD], 80.0% [20.0%]) than the UC group (51 coded sessions; mean [SD], 57.0% [32.0%]; F(1,108) = 23.0; P < .001). With regard to efficiency of service delivery, there were no differences in total face-to-face clinician time between the MATCH group (mean [SD], 806 [527] minutes) and the UC group (mean [SD], 677 [539] minutes) or the overall duration of therapy between the MATCH group (mean [SD], 167 [107 days]) and the UC group (mean [SD], 159 [107] days).Conclusions and relevanceMATCH significantly increased adherence to EST practices but did not improve outcomes or efficiency. The nonsuperiority of MATCH may be attributable to high levels of EST use in UC in New Zealand.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12614000297628.
| S-EPMC7431993 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The American Psychological Association's Society of Clinical Psychology recently adopted the "Tolin Criteria" to evaluate empirically supported treatments. These criteria better account for strength and quality of rapidly accumulating evidence bases for various treatments. Here we apply this framework to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Following procedures outlined by Tolin, McKay, et al. (2015), Step 1 included an examination of quantitative systematic reviews; nine met inclusion criteria. Step 2 evaluated review quality and effect size data. We found high-quality evidence that CBT-I produces clinically and statistically significant effects on insomnia and other sleep-related outcomes. Based on the Tolin Criteria, the literature merits a "strong" recommendation for CBT-I. This report is a working model for subsequent applications of the Tolin Criteria.
| S-EPMC7939024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough systematic reviews of health care interventions are an invaluable tool for health care providers and researchers, many potential authors never publish reviews. This study attempts to determine why some people with interest in performing systematic reviews do not subsequently publish a review; and what steps could possibly increase review completion.MethodsCross-sectional survey by email and facsimile of the 179 participants in Australasian Cochrane Centre training events between 1998 and 2000.ResultsNinety-two participants responded to the survey (51 percent). Response rate of deliverable surveys was 82 percent (92/112). The remainder of the participants had invalid or no contact information on file. More than 75 percent of respondents felt that the current workshops met their needs for training. The most critical barriers to completion of a Cochrane review were: lack of time (80 percent), lack of financial support (36 percent), methodological problems (23 percent) and problems with group dynamics (10 percent).ConclusionsStrategies to protect reviewer time and increase the efficiency of the review process may increase the numbers of trained reviewers completing a systematic review.
| S-EPMC116427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews can serve as a tool in translation of basic life sciences research from laboratory to human research and healthcare. The extent to which reviews of animal research are systematic and unbiased is not known.MethodsWe searched, without language restrictions, Medline, Embase, bibliographies of known reviews (1996-2004) and contacted experts to identify citations of reviews of basic science literature which, as a minimum, performed search of a publicly available resource. From these we identified reviews of animal studies where laboratory variables were measured or where treatments were administered to live animals to examine their effects, and compared them with reviews of bench studies in which human or animal tissues, cell systems or organ preparations were examined in laboratories to better understand mechanisms of diseases.ResultsSystematic reviews of animal studies often lacked methodological features such as specification of a testable hypothesis (9/30, 30%); literature search without language restriction (8/30, 26.6%); assessment of publication bias (5/30, 16.6%), study validity (15/30, 50%) and heterogeneity (10/30, 33.3%); and meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis (12/30, 40%). Compared to reviews of bench studies, they were less prone to bias as they specified the question (96.6% vs. 80%, p = 0.04), searched multiple databases (60% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.01), assessed study quality (50% vs. 20%, p = 0.01), and explored heterogeneity (33.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.001) more often.ConclusionThere seems to be a gradient of frequency of methodological weaknesses among reviews: Attempted systematic reviews of whole animal research tend to be better than those of bench studies, though compared to systematic reviews of human clinical trials they are apparently poorer. There is a need for rigour when reviewing animal research.
| S-EPMC1435907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe systematically searched Pubmed and Embase for SRs of preclinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012.ResultsA total of 91 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed in 48 (52.7%) of these 91 systematic reviews. Thirty-three (36.3%) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. Of the evaluated primary studies, 24.6% was randomized, 14.6% reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker, 23.9% blinded the outcome assessment, and 23.1% reported drop-outs.ConclusionsTo improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice, systematic reviews of animal studies are worthwhile, but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved. Furthermore, risk of bias should be assessed by systematic reviews of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence.
| S-EPMC3966727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPerson-centred care is integral to high-quality health service provision, though concepts vary and the literature is complex. Validated instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills, and behaviours within consultations, are needed for many reasons, including in training programmes. We aimed to provide a high-level synthesis of what was expected to be a large and diverse literature through a systematic review of existing reviews of validation studies a of instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills and behaviours in consultations. The objectives were to undertake a critical appraisal of these reviews, and to summarise the available validated instruments and the evidence underpinning them.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL was conducted in September 2020. Systematic reviews of validation studies of instruments measuring individual practitioner person-centred consultation skills or behaviours which report measurement properties were included. Review quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Details of the reviews, the included validation studies, and the instruments themselves are tabulated, including psychometric data, and a narrative overview of the reviews is provided.ResultsFour reviews were eligible for inclusion. These used different conceptualisations of person-centredness and targeted distinct, sometimes mutually exclusive, practitioners and settings. The four reviews included 68 unique validation studies examining 42 instruments, but with very few overlaps. The critical appraisal shows there is a need for improvements in the design of reviews in this area. The instruments included within these reviews have not been subject to extensive validation study.DiscussionThere are many instruments available which measure person-centred skills in healthcare practitioners and this study offers a guide to what is available to researchers and research users. The most relevant and promising instruments that have already been developed, or items within them, should be further studied rigorously. Validation study of existing material is needed, not the development of new measures.
| S-EPMC10074817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo construct a typology of general practitioners' (GPs) responses regarding their justification of therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular primary prevention for high-risk patients with hypertension.DesignEmpirically grounded construction of typology. Types were defined by attributes derived from the qualitative analysis of GPs' reported reasons for inaction.Participants256 GPs randomised in the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingGPs members of 23 French Regional Colleges of Teachers in General Practice, included in the EffectS of a multifaceted intervention on CArdiovascular risk factors in high-risk hyPErtensive patients (ESCAPE) trial.Data collection and analysisThe database consisted of 2638 written responses given by the GPs to an open-ended question asking for the reasons why drug treatment was not changed as suggested by the national guidelines. All answers were coded using constant comparison analysis. A matrix analysis of codes per GP allowed the construction of a response typology, where types were defined by codes as attributes. Initial coding and definition of types were performed independently by two teams.ResultsInitial coding resulted in a list of 69 codes in the final codebook, representing 4764 coded references in the question responses. A typology including seven types was constructed. 100 GPs were allocated to one and only one of these types, while 25 GPs did not provide enough data to allow classification. Types (numbers of GPs allocated) were: 'optimists' (28), 'negotiators' (20), 'checkers' (15), 'contextualisers' (13), 'cautious' (11), 'rounders' (8) and 'scientists' (5). For the 36 GPs that provided 50 or more coded references, analysis of the code evolution over time and across patients showed a consistent belonging to the initial type for any given GP.ConclusionThis typology could provide GPs with some insight into their general ways of considering changes in the treatment/management of cardiovascular risk factors and guide design of specific physician-centred interventions to reduce inappropriate inaction.Trial registration numberNCT00348855.
| S-EPMC4874143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome.ResultsWe included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed.ConclusionSOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.
| S-EPMC9913533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent reviews suggest that, like much of the psychological literature, research studies using laboratory aggression paradigms tend to be underpowered to reliably locate commonly observed effect sizes (e.g., r = ~.10-.20, Cohen's d = ~0.20-0.40). In an effort to counter this trend, we provide a "power primer" that laboratory aggression researchers can use as a resource when planning studies using this methodology. Using simulation-based power analyses and effect size estimates derived from recent literature reviews, we provide sample size recommendations based on type of research question (e.g., main effect vs. two-way vs. three-way interactions) and correlations among predictors. Results highlight the large number of participants that must be recruited to reach acceptable (~80%) power, especially for tests of interactions where the recommended sample sizes far exceed those typically employed in this literature. These discrepancies are so substantial that we urge laboratory aggression researchers to consider a moratorium on tests of three-way interactions. Although our results use estimates from the laboratory aggression literature, we believe they are generalizable to other lines of research using behavioral tasks, as well as psychological science more broadly. We close by offering a series of best practice recommendations and reiterating long-standing calls for attention to statistical power as a basic element of study planning.
| S-EPMC8980114 | biostudies-literature