The Effectiveness of Psychological Interventions Delivered in Routine Practice: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Journal Information

Full Title: Adm Policy Ment Health

Abbreviation: Adm Policy Ment Health

Country: Unknown

Publisher: Unknown

Language: N/A

Publication Details

Subject Category: Health Services

Available in Europe PMC: Yes

Available in PMC: Yes

PDF Available: No

Transparency Score
6/6
100.0% Transparent
Transparency Indicators
Click on green indicators to view evidence text
Core Indicators
Evidence found in paper:

"data availability data for the systematic review and related code will all be made publicly available through the lead author's github account following publication."

Evidence found in paper:

"data availability data for the systematic review and related code will all be made publicly available through the lead author's github account following publication."

Evidence found in paper:

"Declarations Competing InterestsThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Consent to ParticipateThis systematic review did not involve participant recruitment. Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article."

Evidence found in paper:

"Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors."

Evidence found in paper:

"The present study followed good practice guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA, Page et al., ) and meta-analyses of psychotherapy studies (MAP-24, Flückiger et al., ). A review protocol was pre-registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020175235). Literature searches were carried out without any restrictions on date of publication up to the search date (April 2020). Inclusion criteria were: (a) studies reporting outcomes for routinely delivered treatments (i.e., not as part of efficacy trials); (b) all adult sample (no patients under 16); (c) employed a psychological treatment (i.e., driven by psychological theory and intended to be therapeutic (Spielmans & Flückiger, ), as inferred or described by study manuscripts); and (d) conducted face-to-face. Studies were excluded if they: used (e) family/group treatments, (f) were not available in English; (g) did not employ a self-report measure of treatment effectiveness; (h) did not provide sufficient data to calculate pre–post treatment effect sizes; or (i) employed randomization procedures or control groups. A more detailed table of inclusion/exclusion criteria is available in supplementary Table 1."

Open Access
Paper is freely available to read
Additional Indicators
Replication
Novelty Statement
Assessment Info

Tool: rtransparent

OST Version: N/A

Last Updated: Aug 05, 2025