Cited by 264Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Dropout from individual psychotherapy for major depression: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Cooper, Andrew A., Conklin, Laren R.·2015·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Dropout from mental health treatment poses a substantial problem, but rates vary substantially across studies and diagnoses. Focused reviews are needed to provide more detailed estimates for specific areas of research. Randomized clinical trials involving individual psychotherapy for unipolar depression are ubiquitous and important, but empirical data on average dropout rates from these studies is lacking. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 54 such studies (N=5852) including 80 psychotherapy conditions, and evaluated a number of predictors of treatment- and study-level dropout rates. Our overall weighted dropout estimates were 19.9% at the study level, and 17.5% for psychotherapy conditions specifically. Therapy orientation did not significantly account for variance in dropout estimates, but estimates were significantly higher in psychotherapy conditions with more patients of minority racial status or with comorbid personality disorders. Treatment duration was also positively associated with dropout rates at trend level. Studies with an inactive control comparison had higher dropout rates than those without such a condition. Limitations include the inability to test certain potential predictors (e.g., socioeconomic status) due to infrequent reporting. Overall, our findings suggest the need to consider how specific patient and study characteristics may influence dropout rates in clinical research on individual therapy for depression.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.001

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cooper, A. A., & Conklin, L. R.
Affiliations
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Andrew A.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
40
Pages
57-65
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W243214355
Cited by
264
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
treatment discontinuation, individual psychotherapy, major depressive disorder, predictors of dropout, personality disorders, treatment duration, psychotherapy research
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Patient Dropouts, Psychotherapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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