Effect of Matching Therapists to Patients vs Assignment as Usual on Adult Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Abstract
Importance
Psychotherapists possess strengths and weaknesses in treating different mental health problems, yet performance information is rarely harnessed in mental health care (MHC). To our knowledge, no prior studies have tested the causal efficacy of prospectively matching patients to therapists with empirically derived strengths in treating patients' specific concerns.
Objective
To test the effect of measurement-based matching vs case assignment as usual (CAU) on psychotherapy outcomes.
Design, Setting, and Participants
In this randomized clinical trial, adult outpatients were recruited between November 2017 and April 2019. Assessments occurred at baseline and repeatedly during treatment at 6 community MHC clinics in Cleveland, Ohio. To be eligible, patients had to make their own MHC decisions. Of 1329 individuals screened, 288 were randomized. Excluding those who withdrew or provided no assessments beyond baseline, 218 patients treated by 48 therapists were included in the primary modified intent-to-treat analyses.
Interventions
Therapist performance was assessed pretrial across 15 or more historical cases based on patients' pre-post reporting across 12 problem domains of the routinely administered Treatment Outcome Package (TOP). Therapists were classified in each domain as effective (on average, patients' symptoms reliably improved), neutral (on average, patients' symptoms neither reliably improved nor deteriorated), or ineffective (on average, patients' symptoms…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,329 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.