Patients' perception of treatment credibility represents their belief about a treatment's personal logicality, suitability, and efficaciousness. Although long considered an important common factor bearing on clinical outcome, there have been no systematic reviews of the credibility-outcome association. The present study represents a meta-analysis of the association between patients' credibility perception and their posttreatment outcomes. To be included, articles published through August, 2017 had to (a) include a clinical sample, (b) include a therapist-delivered treatment of at least 3 sessions, (c) include a measure of patients' own early treatment credibility perception, (d) include at least 1 posttreatment mental health outcome not explicitly referenced as a follow-up occasion, and (e) report a statistical test of the credibility-outcome association. The meta-analysis was conducted on 24 independent samples (extracted from 19 references) with 1,504 patients. The overall weighted effect size was r ϭ .12, p Ͻ .001, or d ϭ .24, with high heterogeneity (I 2 ϭ 57%) and no evidence of publication bias. There were no significant moderating effects on the credibility-outcome association for any of the potential moderators that we evaluated. The meta-analytic findings are discussed in light of methodological limitations and with regard to their practice implications. Clinical Impact StatementQuestion: This article examined the association between patients' perception of treatment credibility and their outcomes after treatment ends. Findings: Patients' treatment credibility belief is an empirically supported correlate of treatment outcome that therapists would do well to assess throughout treatment, attempt to heighten at treatment's outset, attempt to responsively match to intervention style, and respond to sensitively if/when it wanes. Meaning: The treatment credibilityimprovement correlation increases the scientific credibility of formerly ill-named "nonspecific" belief factors; thus, there is sufficient information to incorporate persuasive, credibility-enhancing strategies into treatment rationale delivery, ongoing clinical exchange, and training. Next Steps: Future research needs to (a) improve credibility measurement, (b) test strategies that causally enhance patients' perceptions of treatment and therapist credibility to improve treatment efficacy, and (c) illuminate both patient and therapist contributions to such credibility beliefs to help tailor clinical practice and training.

Among individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), comorbidity with other psychiatric disorders is common and often noted as the rule rather than the exception. Standard care providing integrated treatment for comorbid diagnoses simultaneously has been shown to be effective. Technology-based interventions (TBIs) have the potential to provide a cost-effective platform for and greater accessibility to integrated treatments. For the purposes of this review, we defined TBIs as interventions in which the primary targeted aim of the intervention was delivered by automated computer, internet, or mobile system with minimal to no live therapist involvement. A search of the literature identified nine distinct TBIs for SUDs and comorbid disorders. An examination of this limited research showed promise, particularly for TBIs that address problematic alcohol use, depression, and/or anxiety. Additional randomized controlled trials of TBIs for comorbid SUDs and anxiety and depression are needed, as is future research developing TBIs that address SUDs and comorbid eating disorders and psychotic disorders. Ways of leveraging the full capabilities of what technology can offer should also be further explored.

The perceived benefit of return of individual research results (IRRs) in accordance to participants' preferences in genomic biobank research is unclear. We developed an online preference-setting tool for return of IRRs based on the preventability and severity of a condition, which included an opt-out option for IRRs for mental illness, developmental disorders, childhood-onset degenerative conditions, and adult-onset conditions. Parents of patients <18 years of age at Boston Children's Hospital were randomized to the hypothetical scenario that their child was enrolled in one of four biobanks with different policies for IRRs to receive (a) "None," (b) "All," (c) "Binary"--choice to receive all or none, and (d) "Granular"--use the preference-setting tool to choose categories of IRRs. Parents were given a hypothetical IRRs report for their child. The survey was sent to 11,391 parents and completed by 2,718. The Granular group was the most satisfied with the process, biobank, and hypothetical IRRs received. The None group was least satisfied and least likely to agree that the biobank was beneficial (p < .001). The response to the statement that the biobank was harmful was not different between groups. Our data suggest that the ability to designate preferences leads to greater satisfaction and may increase biobank participation.

Background and Objectives A Stage II, two-site randomized clinical trial compared the manualized, single-gender Women’s Recovery Group (WRG) to mixed-gender group therapy (Group Drug Counseling; GDC) and demonstrated efficacy. Enhanced affiliation and support in the WRG is a hypothesized mechanism of efficacy. This study sought to extend results of the previous small Stage I trial that showed the rate of supportive affiliative statements occurred more frequently in WRG than GDC. Methods Participants (N=158; 100 women, 58 men) were 18 years or older, substance dependent, and had used substances within the past 60 days. Women were randomized to WRG (n=52) or GDC (n=48). Group therapy videos were coded by two independent raters; Rater 1 coded 20% of videos (n=74); Rater 2 coded 25% of videos coded by Rater 1 (n=19). Results The number of affiliative statements made in WRG was 66% higher than in GDC. Three of eight affiliative statement categories occurred more frequently in WRG than GDC: supportive, shared experience, and strategy statements. Discussion and Conclusions This larger Stage II trial provided a greater number of group therapy tapes available for analysis. Results extended our previous findings, demonstrating both greater frequency of all affiliative statements, as well as specific categories of statements, made in single-gender WRG than mixed-gender GDC. Scientific Significance Greater frequency of affiliative statements among group members may be one mechanism of enhanced support and efficacy in women-only WRG compared with standard mixed-gender group therapy for SUDs.