Cited by 46Evaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Treatment‐as‐usual in effectiveness studies: What is it and does it matter?

Löfholm, Cecilia Andrée, Brännström, Lars, Olsson, Martin, Hansson, Kjell·2013·International Journal of Social Welfare

Abstract

Andrée Löfholm C, Brännström L, Olsson M, Hansson K. Treatment‐as‐usual in effectiveness studies: What is it and does it matter? A hallmark of an evidence‐based practice (EBP) is the systematic appraisal of research related to the effectiveness of interventions. This study addressed the issue of interpreting results from effectiveness studies that use treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) as a comparator. Using randomised controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of multisystemic therapy as an illustrative example, we show that TAU includes a wide variety of treatment alternatives. Estimated treatment effects on recidivism suggest that TAU seems to contain a greater variation in underlying risk than experimental conditions, supporting the hypothesis that the content of TAU could affect outcomes. Implications for the realisation of an EBP are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2012.00870.x

Cites

59 of 59 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
Löfholm, C. A., Brännström, L., Olsson, M., & Hansson, K.
Affiliations
  • National Board of Health and Welfare (SE)
  • Stockholm University (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
Venue
International Journal of Social Welfare
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-28
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
25-34
ISSN
  • 0907-2055 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-6866
  • 1468-2397
OpenAlex
W1849235302
Cited by
46
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Welfare (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
usual care, effectiveness research, multisystemic therapy, recidivism, evidence-based practice, randomized controlled trials, juvenile offenders, intervention effectiveness

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