Cited by 32Behavioral Health and InterventionsPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsBehavioral and Psychological Studies

The effect of choice interventions on retention-related, behavioural and mood outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Open access
Carlisle, Sophie, Ayling, Kieran, Jia, Ru, Buchanan, Heather, Vedhara, Kavita·2022·Health Psychology Review

Abstract

The provision of choice within interventions has been associated with increased motivation, engagement and interest, as well as improved clinical outcomes. Existing reviews are limited by their wide inclusion criteria or by not assessing behaviour change and mood outcomes. This review examines whether participant-driven choice-based interventions specifically are more likely to be enjoyed and accepted by participants compared to no-choice interventions, and whether this impacts on intervention outcomes in terms of behaviour change or mood. Forty-four randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for retention-related outcomes (drop-out, adherence and satisfaction), and aggregate behaviour change and mood outcomes. Choice-based interventions resulted in significantly less participant drop-out and increased adherence compared to interventions not offering choice. Results for the behaviour change and mood analyses were mixed. This meta-analytic review demonstrates that choice-based interventions may enhance participant retention and adherence, thus researchers and clinicians alike should consider the provision of choice when designing research and interventions. The evidence for the role of choice in behaviour change and mood is less convincing, and there is a need for more, higher quality research in this area.

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 · 10.1080/17437199.2021.1962386

Cites

109 of 110 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?

  • Giving users autonomy and choice over intervention parameters leads to greater adherence and better clinical outcomes.

    “a recent meta-analysis suggests that giving users autonomy and choice over intervention parameters leads to greater adherence and better clinical outcomes [35]”

    From Feasibility and Preliminary Efficacy of Digital Interventions for Depressive Symptoms in Working Adults: Multiarm Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Effects of choice-based interventions section reports significantly better adherence with choice. It also says the review’s evidence for improved mood was not convincing and its findings for behaviour change were mixed, so the claim of better clinical outcomes overstates this meta-analysis. The Importance of choice section reports that earlier reviews found better clinical outcomes, but that is not a firm finding of this review. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1(1), 33-43.
  2. 13m08719 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carlisle, S., Ayling, K., Jia, R., Buchanan, H., & Vedhara, K.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Carlisle, Sophie
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Published
2021-09-16
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
220-256
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
OpenAlex
W3195780421
Cited by
32
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Nottingham
  • National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research
  • Department of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
participant choice, participant retention, dropout, medication adherence, participant satisfaction, behavior change, motivation, intervention design
MeSH terms
Affect, Humans, Motivation

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