IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0099658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity in Patient-Reported Outcomes following Low-Intensity Mental Health Interventions: A Multilevel Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shehzad Ali
  • Elizabeth Littlewood
  • Dean McMillan
  • Jaime Delgadillo
  • Alfonso Miranda
  • Tim Croudace
  • Simon Gilbody

Abstract

Background: Variability in patient-reported outcomes of psychological treatments has been partly attributed to therapists – a phenomenon commonly known as therapist effects. Meta-analytic reviews reveal wide variation in therapist-attributable variability in psychotherapy outcomes, with most studies reporting therapist effects in the region of 5% to 10% and some finding minimal to no therapist effects. However, all except one study to date have been conducted in high-intensity or mixed intervention groups; therefore, there is scarcity of evidence on therapist effects in brief low-intensity psychological interventions. Objective: To examine therapist effects in low-intensity interventions for depression and anxiety in a naturalistic setting. Data and Analysis: Session-by-session data on patient-reported outcome measures were available for a cohort of 1,376 primary care psychotherapy patients treated by 38 therapists. Outcome measures included PHQ-9 (sensitive to depression) and GAD-7 (sensitive to general anxiety disorder) measures. Three-level hierarchical linear modelling was employed to estimate therapist-attributable proportion of variance in clinical outcomes. Therapist effects were evaluated using the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bayesian empirical predictions of therapist random effects. Three sensitivity analyses were conducted: 1) using both treatment completers and non-completers; 2) a sub-sample of cases with baseline scores above the conventional clinical thresholds for PHQ-9 and GAD-7; and 3) a two-level model (using patient-level pre- and post-treatment scores nested within therapists). Results: The ICC estimates for all outcome measures were very small, ranging between 0% and 1.3%, although most were statistically significant. The Bayesian empirical predictions showed that therapist random effects were not statistically significantly different from each other. Between patient variability explained most of the variance in outcomes. Conclusion: Consistent with the only other study to date in low intensity interventions, evidence was found to suggest minimal to no therapist effects in patient-reported outcomes. This draws attention to the more prominent source of variability which is found at the between-patient level.

Suggested Citation

  • Shehzad Ali & Elizabeth Littlewood & Dean McMillan & Jaime Delgadillo & Alfonso Miranda & Tim Croudace & Simon Gilbody, 2014. "Heterogeneity in Patient-Reported Outcomes following Low-Intensity Mental Health Interventions: A Multilevel Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0099658
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099658
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099658&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0099658?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0099658. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.