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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Other studies have shown that accommodating patient treatment can influence treatment outcomes (Adamson et al., 2008; Mergl et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2016).”
From Effects of patient-driven iCBT for anxiety in routine primary care and the relation between increased experience of empowerment and outcome: A randomized controlled trial (2021) · cites this paper as Mergl et al., 2011
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
Hamilton, M. (1960) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 · Cited by 32,817
GPOWER: A general power analysis program
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., & Buchner, A. (1996) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03203630 · Cited by 4,864
Gueorguieva, R., & Krystal, J. H. (2004) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.61.3.310 · Cited by 1,529
Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis for Epidemiology: A Practical Guide
Twisk, J. W. R. (2003) · Cited by 1,244
Cognitive Therapy vs Medications in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Depression
DeRubeis, R. J., Hollon, S. D., Amsterdam, J. D., Shelton, R. C., Young, P. R., Salomon, R. M., O’Reardon, J. P., Lovett, M. L., Gladis, M. M., Brown, L. L., et al. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.4.409 · Cited by 989
Treatment preferences among depressed primary care patients
Dwight-Johnson, M., Sherbourne, C. D., Liao, D., & Wells, K. B. (2000) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.08035.x · Cited by 478
Loh, A., Simon, D., Wills, C. E., Kriston, L., Niebling, W., & Härter, M. (2007) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.03.023 · Cited by 382
Bower, P., Byford, S., Sibbald, B., Ward, E. S., King, M., Lloyd, M., & Gabbay, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1389 · Cited by 350
Raue, P. J., Schulberg, H. C., Heo, M., Klimstra, S., & BRUCE, M. L. (2009) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.60.3.337 · Cited by 225
Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care
Bedi, N., Chilvers, C. E. D., Churchill, D., Dewey, M. E., Duggan, C. F., Fielding, K., Gretton, V., Miller, P., Harrison, G., Lee, A., et al. (2000) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.177.4.312 · Cited by 188
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McHugh, R. K., Whitton, S. W., Peckham, A. D., Welge, J. A., & Otto, M. W. (2013) · The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.4088/jcp.12r07757 · Cited by 800
Cleare, A., Pariante, C., Young, A., Anderson, I., Christmas, D., Cowen, P., Dickens, C., Ferrier, I., Geddes, J., Gilbody, S., et al. (2015) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881115581093 · Cited by 759
Malhi, G. S., Bell, E., Bassett, D., Boyce, P., Bryant, R., Hazell, P., Hopwood, M., Lyndon, B., Mulder, R., Porter, R., et al. (2021) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1177/0004867420979353 · Cited by 614
Treatment selection in depression.
Cohen, Z. D., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2018) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050817-084746 · Cited by 435
Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: a meta-analysis
Lindhiem, O., Bennett, C. B., Trentacosta, C. J., & McLear, C. (2014) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.002 · Cited by 315
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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
