Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies.

Citation metadata

Date: Dec. 2019
Publisher: Elsevier Science Publishers
Document Type: Report; Brief article
Length: 359 words

Document controls

Main content

Abstract :

Keywords Research waste; Open science; Reproducibility; Transparency; Psychological treatment; Psychotherapy; meta-Research; Risk of bias; Publication bias; Data sharing Highlights * We review empirical evidence of research waste in psychological treatment research. * Unjustified hype affects current research priorities (e.g., experimental psychopathology). * Risk of bias, particularly selective outcome reporting, pervades most trials. * Data sharing and reporting guidelines are insufficiently adopted. * Solutions include supporting meta-research and testing open science practices. Abstract A seminal Lancet series focused on increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research, providing a transferrable template to diagnose problems in research. Our goal was to document how some of these sources of waste apply to mental health and particularly psychological treatments research. We synthesize and critically evaluate empirical findings in relation to four major sources: i) defining research priorities; ii) research design, methods and analysis; iii) accessibility of research information; iv) accuracy and usability of research reports. We demonstrate that each source of waste considered is well-represented and amply documented within this field. We describe hype and insufficient consideration of what is known in defining research priorities, persistent risk of bias, particularly due to selective outcome reporting, for psychotherapy trials across mental disorders, intellectual and financial biases, direct and indirect evidence of publication bias, largely inexistent adoption of data sharing, issues of multiplicity and fragmentation of data and findings, and insufficient adoption of reporting guidelines. We expand on a few general solutions, including supporting meta-research, properly testing interventions to increase research quality, placing open science at the center of psychological treatment research and remaining vigilant particularly regarding the strains of research currently prioritized, such as experimental psychopathology. Author Affiliation: (a) Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University, Republicii 37 Street, Cluj-Napoca, Romania (b) Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, California, USA (c) University Rennes, CHU Rennes, Inserm, CIC 1414 (Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Rennes), F- 35000, Rennes, France * Corresponding author. Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Babes-Bolyai University, Republicii 37 Street, 400015, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Article History: Received 23 February 2019; Revised 25 July 2019; Accepted 9 September 2019 Byline: Ioana A. Cristea [ioana.alina.cristea@gmail.com] (a,b,*), Florian Naudet [floriannaudet@gmail.com] (c)

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A605828552