Trends in Methodological Quality in Controlled Trials of Psychological and Social Interventions

Abstract

Objective: There is substantial evidence that poorly designed and reported research can mislead decision making in clinical care. This review investigates the methodological quality of Swedish trials of a wide array of psychological and social interventions. Method: The review includes 302 articles published in peer-reviewed journals during 1990-2014, which evaluated a psychological or social intervention; included a randomized or nonrandomized control group with a pre-post-or pre-follow-up design; and targeted individuals in order to prevent or rehabilitate from physical, psychological, or social problems. The results are based on the information reported in the articles. Results: Overall, methodological quality increased with time. However, more recent studies contained methodological deficits. For example, few had used blinded data collectors, reported power analyses, or searched for adverse events. Conclusion: The results indicate a potential risk of biased results in both older and newer trials. Possible implications for practice and research are discussed.

Adverse event recording failed to reflect potential harms: a review of trial protocols of behavioral, lifestyle and psychological therapy interventions

“…Non-pharmacological interventions can cause harm or unintended effects, yet within public health and psychological therapy fields, clinical trials have not adequately considered these outcomes [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] . This is of concern since intervention assessment in clinical trials requires risk-benefit analysis.…”

How do child welfare referrals in Sweden match children's self‐reporting of severe exposure?

“…Svensson and Janson (2008) state that lack of referrals to the CWS can be understood as a lack of trust in the CWS combined with an idea that the children can be helped elsewhere. Outcomes of out‐of‐home care are poor (Brännström et al, 2020), and evidence concerning most other CWS interventions are lacking (Sundell & Åhsberg, 2018). Our findings, however, showing that many children are referred to the CWS, might be interpreted as trust in the CWS.…”

A Pilot Study of the Swedish Sexual Offender Treatment Program

“…In Sweden, there is lack of research regarding psychosocial interventions in general, although the number of studies is growing. Sundell and Åhsberg (2018) highlight the need for service providers to examine interventions in terms of potential harms and benefits. The results suggest SEIF does not appear to have negative effects (the outlier in figure 3 is most likely a result of inaccurate responses); on the contrary, the study indicates SEIF may reduce problems related to increased (Hanson et al, 2009).…”