Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSpring, Bonnie J.
dc.contributor.authorPagoto, Sherry L.
dc.contributor.authorKnatterud, Genell L.
dc.contributor.authorKozak, Andrea T.
dc.contributor.authorHedeker, Donald
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:22.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:06:00Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:06:00Z
dc.date.issued2006-11-23
dc.date.submitted2010-07-26
dc.identifier.citationJ Clin Psychol. 2007 Jan;63(1):53-71. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20334">Link to article on publisher's site</a>
dc.identifier.issn0021-9762 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jclp.20334
dc.identifier.pmid17115429
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/44989
dc.description.abstractAdoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17115429&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20334
dc.subjectBehavioral Medicine
dc.subject*Bibliometrics
dc.subjectData Interpretation, Statistical
dc.subjectEvidence-Based Medicine
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectPeriodicals as Topic
dc.subjectPractice Guidelines as Topic
dc.subjectRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectBehavioral Disciplines and Activities
dc.subjectBehavior and Behavior Mechanisms
dc.subjectCommunity Health and Preventive Medicine
dc.subjectPreventive Medicine
dc.titleExamination of the analytic quality of behavioral health randomized clinical trials
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleJournal of clinical psychology
dc.source.volume63
dc.source.issue1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/prevbeh_pp/99
dc.identifier.contextkey1409526
html.description.abstract<p>Adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) policy has implications for clinicians and researchers alike. In fields that have already adopted EBP, evidence-based practice guidelines derive from systematic reviews of research evidence. Ultimately, such guidelines serve as tools used by practitioners. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and effectiveness reserve their strongest endorsements for treatments that are supported by high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs). It is unknown how well RCTs reported in behavioral science journals fare compared to quality standards set forth in fields that pioneered the evidence-based movement. We compared analytic quality features of all behavioral health RCTs (n = 73) published in three leading behavioral journals and two leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003. A behavioral health trial was operationalized as one employing a behavioral treatment modality to prevent or treat an acute or chronic physical disease or condition. Findings revealed areas of weakness in analytic aspects of the behavioral health RCTs reported in both sets of journals. Weaknesses were more pronounced in behavioral journals. The authors offer recommendations for improving the analytic quality of behavioral health RCTs to ensure that evidence about behavioral treatments is highly weighted in systematic reviews.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathprevbeh_pp/99
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine, Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine
dc.source.pages53-71


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record