Eline Eigenhuis, Vanessa E. M. van Buuren, Rosa E. Boeschoten, Anna D. T. Muntingh, Neeltje M. Batelaan, Patricia van Oppen
{"title":"The Effects of Patient Preference on Clinical Outcome, Satisfaction and Adherence Within the Treatment of Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Eline Eigenhuis, Vanessa E. M. van Buuren, Rosa E. Boeschoten, Anna D. T. Muntingh, Neeltje M. Batelaan, Patricia van Oppen","doi":"10.1002/cpp.2985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Taking patient preference into consideration has received increased attention in the last decades. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of patient preference on clinical outcome, satisfaction and adherence regarding treatment of depression and anxiety.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for (cluster) randomized controlled trials. Twenty-six randomized controlled clinical trials were included, comprising 3670 participants, examining the effect of patient preference regarding treatment of anxiety and depression on clinical outcome, satisfaction and/or adherence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>No effect of patient preference was found on clinical outcome [<i>d</i> = 0.06, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.15), <i>p</i> = 0.16, <i>n</i> = 23 studies]. A small effect of patient preference was found on treatment satisfaction [<i>d</i> = 0.33, 95% CI = (0.08, 0.59), <i>p</i> = 0.01, <i>n</i> = 6 studies] and on treatment adherence [OR = 1.55, 95% CI = (1.28, 1.87), <i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>n</i> = 22 studies].</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Limitations</h3>\n \n <p>Patient preference is a heterogeneous concept, future studies should strive to equalize operationalization of preference. Subgroup analyses within this study should be interpreted with caution because the amount of studies per analysed subgroup was generally low. Most studies included in this meta-analysis focused on patients with depression. The small number of studies (<i>n</i> = 6) on satisfaction, prevents us from drawing firm conclusions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>While this meta-analysis did not find a positive effect of considering patient preference on clinical outcome, it was associated with slightly better treatment satisfaction and adherence. Accommodating preference of patients with anxiety and depression can improve treatment.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>PROSPERO: CRD42020172556</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10460,"journal":{"name":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpp.2985","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical psychology & psychotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.2985","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Taking patient preference into consideration has received increased attention in the last decades. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effects of patient preference on clinical outcome, satisfaction and adherence regarding treatment of depression and anxiety.
Methods
Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for (cluster) randomized controlled trials. Twenty-six randomized controlled clinical trials were included, comprising 3670 participants, examining the effect of patient preference regarding treatment of anxiety and depression on clinical outcome, satisfaction and/or adherence.
Results
No effect of patient preference was found on clinical outcome [d = 0.06, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.15), p = 0.16, n = 23 studies]. A small effect of patient preference was found on treatment satisfaction [d = 0.33, 95% CI = (0.08, 0.59), p = 0.01, n = 6 studies] and on treatment adherence [OR = 1.55, 95% CI = (1.28, 1.87), p < 0.001, n = 22 studies].
Limitations
Patient preference is a heterogeneous concept, future studies should strive to equalize operationalization of preference. Subgroup analyses within this study should be interpreted with caution because the amount of studies per analysed subgroup was generally low. Most studies included in this meta-analysis focused on patients with depression. The small number of studies (n = 6) on satisfaction, prevents us from drawing firm conclusions.
Conclusions
While this meta-analysis did not find a positive effect of considering patient preference on clinical outcome, it was associated with slightly better treatment satisfaction and adherence. Accommodating preference of patients with anxiety and depression can improve treatment.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy aims to keep clinical psychologists and psychotherapists up to date with new developments in their fields. The Journal will provide an integrative impetus both between theory and practice and between different orientations within clinical psychology and psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy will be a forum in which practitioners can present their wealth of expertise and innovations in order to make these available to a wider audience. Equally, the Journal will contain reports from researchers who want to address a larger clinical audience with clinically relevant issues and clinically valid research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
