Mental Health Resources, Memphis, TN 38119, USA.
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2011 Sep;48(3):225-8; discussion 234-6. doi: 10.1037/a0022701.
Effectiveness studies, by definition, must reflect patient and treatment variables that exist in the real world of practice. This includes identifying the covariates that contribute to both positive and negative outcomes. The use of clinically significant change and reliable change indices is reviewed to demonstrate that patient changes can be made on the basis of normative comparisons, using outcome relevant variables that reflect the diversity of problems that are of concern to our clients. Therefore, neither agreement on a single outcome index nor plotting the entire outcome frequency distributions of the comparison group, as called for by Krause (see record 2011-19228-002), is required. Various methods currently exist and are used to address the limitations Krause cites with respect to randomized trials, outcome relevant covariates, file-drawer effects, and so forth. The identification and prediction of an individual's treatment response can be done in treatment as usual studies, where outcome relevant covariates have not been controlled, by studying change at the individual level. By studying such individuals and their combined continuums of treatment response, we can then identify clinically relevant outcome variables and alter the course of treatment accordingly.
有效性研究根据其定义,必须反映出实践中真实世界存在的患者和治疗变量。这包括确定对积极和消极结果都有影响的协变量。本文回顾了临床显著变化和可靠变化指数的使用,以证明可以基于规范比较,使用反映我们客户关注的各种问题的与结果相关的变量,来对患者的变化进行评估。因此,既不需要就单一的结果指标达成一致,也不需要按照 Krause 的要求(见记录 2011-19228-002)对对照组的整个结果频率分布进行绘图。目前存在并使用各种方法来解决 Krause 提出的关于随机试验、与结果相关的协变量、文件抽屉效应等方面的局限性。可以在未对与结果相关的协变量进行控制的常规治疗研究中,通过对个体水平的变化进行研究,确定个体的治疗反应。通过对这些个体及其治疗反应的连续体进行研究,我们可以确定临床相关的结果变量,并相应地改变治疗方案。