Cited by 126Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsTreatment of Major DepressionMental Health Treatment and Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are treatment preferences relevant in response to serotonergic antidepressants and cognitive-behavioral therapy in depressed primary care patients? Results from a randomized controlled trial including a patients' choice arm

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the influence of depressed patients' preferences and expectations about treatments upon treatment outcome. We investigated whether better clinical outcome in depressed primary care patients is associated with receiving their preferred treatment. METHODS: Within a randomized placebo-controlled single-centre 10-week trial with 5 arms (sertraline; placebo; cognitive-behavioral group therapy, CBT-G; moderated self-help group control; treatment with sertraline or CBT-G according to patients' choice), outcomes for 145 primary care patients with mild-to-moderate depressive disorders according to DSM-IV criteria were investigated. Preference for medication versus psychotherapy was assessed at screening using a single item. Post-baseline difference scores for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) were used to assess treatment outcome (mixed-model repeated-measures regression analysis). RESULTS: Depressed patients receiving their preferred treatment (n = 63), whether sertraline or CBT-G, responded significantly better than those who did not receive their preferred therapy (n = 54; p = 0.001). The difference in outcome between both groups was 8.0 points on the HAMD-17 for psychotherapy and 2.9 points on the HAMD-17 for treatment with antidepressants. Results were not explained by differences in depression severity or dropout rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' relative preference for medication versus psychotherapy should be considered when offering a treatment because receiving the preferred treatment conveys an additional and clinically relevant benefit (HAMD-17: +2.9 points for drugs; +8.0 points for CBT-G) in outcome.

Overview

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 · 10.1159/000318772

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. 10.1136%2Fbmj.321.7273.1383 · DOI
  2. 10.1001%2Fjama.293.9.1089 · DOI
  3. 10.1001%2Fjama.277.11.925 · DOI
  4. 10.1007%2Fs00391-008-0010-8 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 126

Metadata

Authors
Mergl, R., Henkel, V., Allgaier, A.-K., Kramer, D., Hautzinger, M., Kohnen, R., Coyne, J., & Hegerl, U.
Affiliations
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • University of Pennsylvania Health System (US)
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2010-10-23
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
39-47
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
OpenAlex
W1966837287
Cited by
126
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 16
FWCI
11.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
treatment preferences, patient choice, sertraline, cognitive behavioral therapy, group therapy, depression, primary care, antidepressants, psychotherapy, treatment outcomes, patient expectations
MeSH terms
Adult, Depressive Disorder, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Regression Analysis, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Sertraline, 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