文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2025

心理社会干预研究中的研究者利益关联:元研究方案与试点研究

Researcher allegiance in research on psychosocial interventions: meta-research study protocol and pilot study.

作者信息

Yoder Whitney Rose, Karyotaki Eirini, Cristea Ioana-Alina, van Duin Daniëlle, Cuijpers Pim

机构信息

Department of Clinical, Neuro and Developmental Psychology Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2019 Feb 19;9(2):e024622. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024622.


DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024622
PMID:30782912
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6377509/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: One potential source of bias in randomised clinical trials of psychological interventions is researcher allegiance (RA). The operationalisation of RA differs strongly across studies, and there is not a generally accepted method of operationalising or measuring it. Furthermore, it remains unclear as to how RA affects the outcomes of trials and if it results in better outcomes for a preferred intervention. The aim of this project is to develop and validate a scale that accurately identifies RA, contribute to the understanding of the impact that RA has in a research setting and to make recommendations for addressing RA in practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scale will first be developed and validated to measure RA in psychotherapy trials. The scale will be validated by surveying authors of psychotherapy trials to assess their opinions, beliefs and preferences of psychotherapy interventions. Furthermore, the scale will be validated for use outside the field of psychotherapy. The validated checklist will then be used to examine two potential mechanisms of how RA may affect outcomes of interventions: publication bias (by assessing grants) and risk of bias (RoB). Finally, recommendations will be developed, and a feasibility study will be conducted at a national mental health agency in The Netherlands. Main analyses comprise inter-rater reliability of checklist items, correlations to examine the relationship between checklist items and author survey (convergent validity) as well as checklist items and trial outcomes and multivariate meta-regression techniques to assess potential mechanisms of how allegiance affects trial outcomes (publication bias and RoB). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Scientific and Ethical Review Board (VCWE) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Study result and advancements will also be published on the Open Science Framework. Furthermore, main findings will be disseminated through articles in international peer-reviewed open access journals. Results and recommendations will be communicated to the Cochrane Collaboration, the Campbell Collaboration and other funding agencies.

摘要

引言:心理干预随机临床试验中一个潜在的偏倚来源是研究者的偏好(RA)。不同研究中RA的操作化差异很大,且尚无普遍接受的操作化或测量方法。此外,RA如何影响试验结果以及它是否会使首选干预措施产生更好的结果仍不清楚。本项目的目的是开发并验证一个能够准确识别RA的量表,促进对RA在研究环境中所产生影响的理解,并为在实践中应对RA提出建议。 方法与分析:首先将开发并验证一个量表,用于测量心理治疗试验中的RA。该量表将通过对心理治疗试验的作者进行调查来验证,以评估他们对心理治疗干预的看法、信念和偏好。此外,该量表将在心理治疗领域之外进行验证。然后,经过验证的清单将用于研究RA可能影响干预结果的两种潜在机制:发表偏倚(通过评估资助情况)和偏倚风险(RoB)。最后,将提出建议,并在荷兰的一家国家心理健康机构进行可行性研究。主要分析包括清单项目的评分者间信度、用于检验清单项目与作者调查之间关系的相关性(收敛效度)以及清单项目与试验结果之间的相关性,以及用于评估偏好如何影响试验结果的潜在机制(发表偏倚和RoB)的多变量元回归技术。 伦理与传播:本研究已由阿姆斯特丹自由大学的科学与伦理审查委员会(VCWE)审查并批准。研究结果和进展也将在开放科学框架上发表。此外,主要研究结果将通过国际同行评审的开放获取期刊上的文章进行传播。结果和建议将传达给Cochrane协作网、坎贝尔协作网和其他资助机构。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/53ad/6377509/02eb7025babb/bmjopen-2018-024622f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/53ad/6377509/137a026a69ad/bmjopen-2018-024622f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/53ad/6377509/02eb7025babb/bmjopen-2018-024622f02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/53ad/6377509/137a026a69ad/bmjopen-2018-024622f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/53ad/6377509/02eb7025babb/bmjopen-2018-024622f02.jpg

相似文献

[1]
Researcher allegiance in research on psychosocial interventions: meta-research study protocol and pilot study.

BMJ Open. 2019-2-19

[2]
Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews.

Clin Psychol Rev. 2013-2-21

[3]
Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: a systematic appraisal.

BMJ Open. 2015-6-1

[4]
Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? a meta-analysis.

J Couns Psychol. 2012-9-3

[5]
Can psychotherapists function as their own controls? Meta-analysis of the crossed therapist design in comparative psychotherapy trials.

J Clin Psychiatry. 2012-10-30

[6]
Targeted psychological and psychosocial interventions for auditory hallucinations in persons with psychotic disorders: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PLoS One. 2024

[7]
Allegiance Bias and Treatment Quality as Moderators of the Effectiveness of Humanistic Psychotherapy: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

JMIR Res Protoc. 2019-11-25

[8]
Nutrition interventions for children aged less than 5 years following natural disasters: a systematic review protocol.

BMJ Open. 2015-11-30

[9]
Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials examining the effects of psychotherapeutic interventions versus "no intervention" for acute major depressive disorder and a randomised trial examining the effects of "third wave" cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based treatment for acute major depressive disorder.

Dan Med J. 2014-10

[10]
Does Researcher Allegiance Bias Outcomes in Psychotherapy Research? A Quasi-Experimental Secondary Analysis.

Clin Psychol Psychother. 2024

引用本文的文献

[1]
Delayed Effects of tDCS Combined with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Major Depression: A Randomized, Double-Blind Pilot Trial.

Brain Sci. 2025-4-25

[2]
Allegiance and Treatment Quality as Moderators of the Comparative Effectiveness of Psychotherapy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Humanistic Psychotherapy to Other Psychotherapy Approaches.

Clin Psychol Eur. 2025-2-28

[3]
Communication skills training for improving the communicative abilities of student social workers.

Campbell Syst Rev. 2023-2-23

本文引用的文献

[1]
Efficacy of Psychotherapies for Borderline Personality Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

JAMA Psychiatry. 2017-4-1

[2]
How effective are cognitive behavior therapies for major depression and anxiety disorders? A meta-analytic update of the evidence.

World Psychiatry. 2016-10

[3]
Most psychotherapies do not really work, but those that might work should be assessed in biased studies.

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016-10

[4]
How to prove that your therapy is effective, even when it is not: a guideline.

Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2016-10

[5]
Countering Cognitive Bias: Tips for Recognizing the Impact of Potential Bias on Research.

J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016-2

[6]
Disclosure of researcher allegiance in meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials of psychotherapy: a systematic appraisal.

BMJ Open. 2015-6-1

[7]
Researcher allegiance in psychotherapy outcome research: an overview of reviews.

Clin Psychol Rev. 2013-2-21

[8]
Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.

Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012

[9]
Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? a meta-analysis.

J Couns Psychol. 2012-9-3

[10]
The efficacy of non-directive supportive therapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis.

Clin Psychol Rev. 2012-2-8

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索