4.4 Article

Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: A meta-analysis

Journal

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 506-517

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002

Keywords

Treatment choice; Patient preference; Shared decision making; Completion; Satisfaction; Outcome

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [K01 MH093508, MH 093508] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of client preferences on treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome. Our search of the literature resulted in 34 empirical articles describing 32 unique clinical trials that either randomized some clients to an active choice condition (shared decision making condition or choice of treatment) or assessed client preferences. Clients who were involved in shared decision making, chose a treatment condition, or otherwise received their preferred treatment evidenced higher treatment satisfaction (ESd = .34; p < .001), increased completion rates (ESoR = 137; ESd = .17; p < .001), and superior clinical outcome (ESd = .15; p < .0001), compared to clients who were not involved in shared decision making, did not choose a treatment condition, or otherwise did not receive their preferred treatment. Although the effect sizes are modest in magnitude, they were generally consistent across several potential moderating variables including study design (preference versus active choice), psychoeducation (informed versus uninformed), setting (inpatient versus outpatient), client diagnosis (mental health versus other), and unit of randomization (client versus provider). Our findings highlight the clinical benefit of assessing client preferences, providing treatment choices when two or more efficacious options are available, and involving clients in treatment-related decisions when treatment options are not available. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available