Cited by 294Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Dose-effect relations and responsive regulation of treatment duration: The good enough level.

Barkham, Michael, Connell, Janice, Stiles, William B., Miles, Jeremy N. V., Margison, Frank, Evans, Chris, Mellor-Clark, John·2006·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

This study examined rates of improvement in psychotherapy as a function of the number of sessions attended. The clients (N=1,868; 73.1% female; 92.4% White; average age=40), who were seen for a variety of problems in routine primary care mental health practices, attended 1 to 12 sessions, had planned endings, and completed the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) at the beginning and end of their treatment. The percentage of clients achieving reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI) on the CORE-OM did not increase with number of sessions attended. Among clients who began treatment above the CORE-OM clinical cutoff (n=1,472), the RCSI rate ranged from 88% for clients who attended 1 session down to 62% for clients who attended 12 sessions (r=-.91). Previously reported negatively accelerating aggregate curves may reflect progressive ending of treatment by clients who had achieved a good enough level of improvement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.74.1.160

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

3 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barkham, M., Connell, J., Stiles, W. B., Miles, J. N. V., Margison, F., Evans, C., & Mellor-Clark, J.
Affiliations
University of Leeds (GB)
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2006
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
160-167
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2152984622
Cited by
293
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 13
FWCI
15.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
NHS Priorities and Needs Research & Development Levy
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
psychotherapy outcome, number of treatment sessions, treatment duration, dose-response relationship, CORE-OM, primary care mental health
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Child, Depressive Disorder, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, Personality Assessment, Primary Health Care, Problem Solving, Psychotherapy, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Episode of Care, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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