Cited by 315Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMental Health and Patient Involvement

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

Open access
Lindhiem, Oliver, Bennett, Charles B., Trentacosta, Christopher J., McLear, Caitlin·2014·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

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=1.37; 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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Pegg PO Jr The impact of patient-centered information on patients' treatment adherence, satisfaction, and outcomes in traumatic brain injury rehabilitation 2004 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PsycINFO. (Order No. AAI3094840)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lindhiem, O., Bennett, C. B., Trentacosta, C. J., & McLear, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Lindhiem, Oliver
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
506-517
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2076273488
Cited by
315
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 10
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (MH 093508)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
consumer preferences, shared decision-making, treatment satisfaction, treatment completion, clinical outcomes, psychoeducation, informed consent, psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Patient Preference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review