Search

Background: Randomized trials of the effects of psychological therapies seek internal validity via homogeneous samples and standardized treatment protocols. In contrast, practice-based studies aim for clinical realism and external validity via heterogeneous samples of clients treated under routine practice conditions. We compared indices of treatment effects in these two types of studies.Method: Using published transformation formulas, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scores from five randomized trials of depression (N = 477 clients) were transformed into Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) scores and compared with CORE-OM data collected in four practice-based studies (N = 4,196 clients). Conversely, the practice-based studies' CORE-OM scores were transformed into BDI scores and compared with randomized trial data.Results: Randomized trials showed a modest advantage over practice-based studies in amount of pre-post improvement. This difference was compressed or exaggerated depending on the direction of the transformation but averaged about 12%. There was a similarly sized advantage to randomized trials in rates of reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI). The largest difference was yielded by comparisons of effect sizes which suggested an advantage more than twice as large, reflecting narrower pre-treatment distributions in the randomized trials.Conclusions: Outcomes of completed treatments for depression in randomized trials appeared to be modestly greater than those in routine care settings. The size of the difference may be distorted depending on the method for calculating degree of change. Transforming BDI scores into CORE-OM scores and vice versa may be a preferable alternative to effect sizes for comparisons of studies using these measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapy's equivalence paradox is that treatments tend to have equivalently positive outcomes despite non-equivalent theories and techniques. We replicated an earlier comparison of treatment approaches in a sample four times larger and restricted to primary-care mental health.MethodPatients (n=5613) who received cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), person-centred therapy (PCT) or psychodynamic therapy (PDT) at one of 32 NHS primary-care services during a 3-year period (2002-2005) completed the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) at the beginning and end of treatment. Therapists indicated which approaches were used on an End of Therapy form. We compared outcomes of groups treated with CBT (n=1045), PCT (n=1709), or PDT (n=261) only or with one of these plus one additional approach (e.g. integrative, supportive, art), designated CBT+1 (n=1035), PCT+1 (n=1033), or PDT+1 (n=530), respectively. RESULTS: All six groups began treatment with equivalent CORE-OM scores, and all averaged marked improvement (overall pre/post effect size=1.39). Neither treatment approach nor degree of purity ('only' v. '+1') had a statistically significant effect. Distributions of change scores were all similar. CONCLUSIONS: Replicating the earlier results, the theoretically different approaches tended to have equivalent outcomes. Caution is warranted because of limited treatment specification, non-random assignment, incomplete data, and other issues. Insofar as these routine treatments appear effective for patients who complete them, those who fail to complete (or to begin) treatment deserve attention by researchers and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: It is important to know the stability of standard outcome measures prior to therapy over differing periods of time that map onto the realities of waiting times in routine service settings. METHOD: We studied 1,684 clients who completed one or both the targeted measures Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measures (CORE-OM) and Beck Depression Inventory-I (BDI-I) two times, at intervals of up to 12 months, prior to beginning psychotherapy. We also selected an additional 1,623 clients who completed the CORE-OM (N=1,623), BDI-I (N=980) or both at referral, but had no records of further contact with the service. RESULTS: There was little change in the mean CORE-OM or BDI-I scores between referral and clinical assessment. The test-retest correlations showed substantial stability on both measures, declining only moderately at the longer intervals studied. CONCLUSION: The high test-retest correlations for periods of up to 6 months suggest that psychological disturbance was both reliably measured by the CORE-OM and the BDI-I, and reasonably stable among clients waiting to be assessed. Implications for routine practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) are routinely used to assess emotional problems. It would be helpful to be able to compare scores when only one of the measures is available. We investigated the relationship between the measures and produced translation tables. METHODS: Level of agreement between CORE-OM and BDI-I was assessed for 2,234 clients who had completed both measures at referral for routine secondary care. Tables for predicting between the measures were constructed using several methods, including non-linear regression and non-parametric smoothing. Results were cross-validated on a separate sample of 326 clients. RESULTS: High correlations between the measures were obtained (r=.862 for female clients; r=.855 for male clients). Accuracy in predicting caseness is higher than predicting depression levels. CONCLUSIONS: CORE-OM and BDI can be compared in routine clinical settings with acceptable accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Psychotherapy's equivalence paradox is that treatments have equivalently positive outcomes despite non-equivalent theories and techniques. We compared the outcomes of contrasting approaches practised in routine care. METHOD: Patients (n = 1309) who received cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), person-centred therapy (PCT) and psychodynamic therapy (PDT) at one of 58 National Health Service (NHS) primary and secondary care sites in the UK during a 3-year period completed the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) at the beginning and end of their treatment. Therapists indicated which treatment approaches were used on an End of Therapy form. We compared outcomes of six groups: three treated with CBT, PCT or PDT only, and three treated with one of these plus one additional approach (e.g. integrative, supportive, art), designated CBT+1, PCT+1 or PDT+1 respectively. RESULTS: All six groups averaged marked improvement (pre-post effect size = 1.36). Treatment approach and degree of purity ('only' vs. '+1') each accounted for statistically significant but comparatively tiny proportions of the variance in CORE-OM scores (respectively 1% and 0.5% as much as pre-post change). Distributions of change scores were largely overlapping. CONCLUSIONS: Results for these three treatment approaches as practised routinely across a range of NHS settings were generally consistent with previous findings that theoretically different approaches tend to have equivalent outcomes. Caution is warranted because of limited treatment specification, non-random assignment, lack of a control group, missing data and other issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study followed up one by Stiles et al. (2003), which identified sudden gains -- large reductions from one session to the next on a short form of clinical outcomes in routine evaluation outcome measure (CORE-SF) -- by some clients in routine clinical practice. We interviewed the therapists who had treated sudden gain and non-sudden gain clients. Results showed that therapists could retrospectively identify which clients had or had not experienced sudden CORE-SF gains at substantially better than chance rates, although they identified only about half of the clients who had experienced such gains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the assimilation model, personality may be considered as a community of internal voices representing traces of previous experiences. This study addressed the hypothesis that a person's internal voices sound different from each other. First, following an intensive qualitative procedure, four clinically sophisticated raters identified six internal voices in a 45-minute interview with Mary, a graduate student in psychology. They characterized the voices by (a) distinctive names, (b) descriptions of vocal and personality characteristics, and (c) sets of excerpted passages. Next, using the voice names and descriptions, additional raters independently sorted the passages into groups. Sortings based on transcript plus audio agreed with the sophisticated raters on 68.9% of the passages, as compared with 37.2% for sortings based on transcript only, while chance agreement expected for both was 16.7%. These findings support a literal view of internal multiplicity, consistent with a modular organization of experiential information within personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main outcome and process findings from the Second Sheffield Psychotherapy Project (SPP2) support the equivalence paradox: the overall outcomes of cognitive-behavioural (CB) and psychodynamic-interpersonal (P1) therapy were roughly the same, but the content of the two treatments were different. However, when we compared specific groups of clients or specific problems CB therapy showed an outcome advantage to PI therapy. Subsequent analyses of the data suggested that two factors accounted for these differences in treatment outcome and processes: the extent to which clients had assimilated their problems at the beginning of therapy and therapists' responsiveness to clients' interpersonal style. The implications of the SPP2 findings for clinical practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]