Objective: To review the therapist effects literature since Baldwin and Imel's (2013) review. Method: Systematic literature review of three databases (PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science) replicating Baldwin and Imel (2013) search terms. Weighted averages of therapist effects (TEs) were calculated, and a critical narrative review of included studies conducted. Results: Twenty studies met inclusion criteria (3 RCTs; 17 practice-based) with 19 studies using multilevel modeling. TEs were found in 19 studies. The TE range for all studies was 0.2% to 29% (weighted average = 5%). For RCTs, 1%-29% (weighted average = 8.2%). For practice-based studies, 0.2-21% (weighted average = 5%). The university counseling subsample yielded a lower TE (2.4%) than in other groupings (i.e., primary care, mixed clinical settings, and specialist/focused settings). Therapist sample sizes remained lower than recommended, and few studies appeared to be designed specifically as TE studies as opposed to maximising on the availability of large routine patient datasets. Conclusions: Therapist effects are a robust phenomenon although considerable heterogeneity exists across studies. Patient severity appeared related to TE size. TEs from RCTs were highly variable. Using an overall therapist effects statistic may lack precision, and TEs might be better reported separately for specific clinical settings.

The size of therapist effect was similar to those found elsewhere, but the effect was greater for more severe patients. Differences in patient outcomes between those therapists identified as above or below average were large, and greater therapist risk caseload, rather than non-risk caseload, was associated with poorer patient outcomes.

BackgroundObesity is a major challenge for people with schizophrenia.AimsWe assessed whether STEPWISE, a theory-based, group structured lifestyle education programme could support weight reduction in people with schizophrenia.MethodIn this randomised controlled trial (study registration: ISRCTN19447796), we recruited adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or first-episode psychosis from ten mental health organisations in England. Participants were randomly allocated to the STEPWISE intervention or treatment as usual. The 12-month intervention comprised four 2.5 h weekly group sessions, followed by 2-weekly maintenance contact and group sessions at 4, 7 and 10 months. The primary outcome was weight change after 12 months. Key secondary outcomes included diet, physical activity, biomedical measures and patient-related outcome measures. Cost-effectiveness was assessed and a mixed-methods process evaluation was included.ResultsBetween 10 March 2015 and 31 March 2016, we recruited 414 people (intervention 208, usual care 206) with 341 (84.4%) participants completing the trial. At 12 months, weight reduction did not differ between groups (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI −1.6 to 1.7, P = 0.963); physical activity, dietary intake and biochemical measures were unchanged. STEPWISE was well-received by participants and facilitators. The healthcare perspective incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £246 921 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.ConclusionsParticipants were successfully recruited and retained, indicating a strong interest in weight interventions; however, the STEPWISE intervention was neither clinically nor cost-effective. Further research is needed to determine how to manage overweight and obesity in people with schizophrenia.Declaration of interestR.I.G.H. received fees for lecturing, consultancy work and attendance at conferences from the following: Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Lundbeck, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Otsuka, Sanofi, Sunovion, Takeda, MSD. M.J.D. reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Servier, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc.; and, grants from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen. K.K. has received fees for consultancy and speaker for Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Servier and Merck Sharp & Dohme. He has received grants in support of investigator and investigator-initiated trials from Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck Sharp & Dohme. K.K. has received funds for research, honoraria for speaking at meetings and has served on advisory boards for Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Novo Nordisk. D.Sh. is expert advisor to the NICE Centre for guidelines; board member of the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH); clinical advisor (paid consultancy basis) to National Clinical Audit of Psychosis (NCAP); views are personal and not those of NICE, NCCMH or NCAP. J.P. received personal fees for involvement in the study from a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant. M.E.C. and Y.D. report grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment, during the conduct of the study; and The Leicester Diabetes Centre, an organisation (employer) jointly hosted by an NHS Hospital Trust and the University of Leicester and who is holder (through the University of Leicester) of the copyright of the STEPWISE programme and of the DESMOND suite of programmes, training and intervention fidelity framework that were used in this study. S.R. has received honorarium from Lundbeck for lecturing. F.G. reports personal fees from Otsuka and Lundbeck, personal fees and non-financial support from Sunovion, outside the submitted work; and has a family member with professional links to Lilly and GSK, including shares. F.G. is in part funded by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care Funding scheme, by the Maudsley Charity and by the Stanley Medical Research Institute and is supported by the by the Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London.

Objective The aim of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns and use of antiobesity medications in a large cohort of patients using data from electronic health records. Methods Pharmacy‐ and patient‐level electronic health record data were obtained on 2,248,407 adults eligible for weight‐loss medications from eight geographically dispersed health care organizations. Results A total of 29,964 patients (1.3% of total cohort) filled at least one weight‐loss medication prescription. This cohort was 82.3% female, with median age 44.9 years and median BMI 37.2 kg/m2. Phentermine accounted for 76.6% of all prescriptions, with 51.7% of prescriptions being filled for ≥ 120 days and 33.8% filled for ≥ 360 days. There was an increase of 32.9% in medication days for all medications in 2015 compared with 2009. Higher prescription rates were observed in women, black patients, and patients in higher BMI classes. Of 3,919 providers who wrote at least one filled prescription, 23.8% (n = 863) were “frequent prescribers” who wrote 89.6% of all filled prescriptions. Conclusions Weight‐loss medications are rarely prescribed to eligible patients. Phentermine accounted for > 75% of all medication days, with a majority of patients filling it for more than 4 months. Less than one‐quarter of prescribing providers accounted for approximately 90% of all prescriptions.

Therapist burnout has a negative impact on treatment outcomes and could be the target of future preventive and remedial action.

BackgroundCognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is the front-line psychological intervention for step 3 within UK psychological therapy services. Counselling is recommended only when other interventions have failed and its effectiveness has been questioned.MethodA secondary data analysis was conducted of data collected from 33,243 patients across 103 Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services as part of the second round of the National Audit of Psychological Therapies (NAPT). Initial analysis considered levels of pre-post therapy effect sizes (ESs) and reliable improvement (RI) and reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI). Multilevel modelling was used to model predictors of outcome, namely patient pre-post change on PHQ-9 scores at last therapy session.ResultsCounselling received more referrals from patients experiencing moderate to severe depression than CBT. For patients scoring above the clinical cut-off on the PHQ-9 at intake, the pre-post ES (95% CI) for CBT was 1.59 (1.58, 1.62) with 46.6% making RCSI criteria and for counselling the pre-post ES was 1.55 (1.52, 1.59) with 44.3% of patients meeting RCSI criteria. Multilevel modelling revealed a significant site effect of 1.8%, while therapy type was not a predictor of outcome. A significant interaction was found between the number of sessions attended and therapy type, with patients attending fewer sessions on average for counselling [M = 7.5 (5.54) sessions and a median (IQR) of 6 (3–10)] than CBT [M = 8.9 (6.34) sessions and a median (IQR) of 7 (4–12)]. Only where patients had 18 or 20 sessions was CBT significantly more effective than counselling, with recovery rates (95% CIs) of 62.2% (57.1, 66.9) and 62.4% (56.5, 68.0) respectively, compared with 44.4% (32.7, 56.6) and 42.6% (30.0, 55.9) for counselling. Counselling was significantly more effective at two sessions with a recovery rate of 34.9% (31.9, 37.9) compared with 22.2% (20.5, 24.0) for CBT.ConclusionsOutcomes for counselling and CBT in the treatment of depression were comparable. Research efforts should focus on factors other than therapy type that may influence outcomes, namely the inherent variability between services, and adopt multilevel modelling as the given analytic approach in order to capture the naturally nested nature of the implementation and delivery of psychological therapies. It is of concern that half of all patients, regardless of type of intervention, did not show reliable improvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1370-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

which refers to the finding that some therapists are more effective than others, and the second is variability, which refers to the natural phenomenon that pervades almost all human endeavors, such that achieving similar levels of skills within a profession is nigh on impossible. In this chapter, we first set out more fully the central definitions and concepts relating to therapist effects, effective therapists, and variability. We then provide a brief history of research in this field, focus on how research studies are moving toward placing therapists at the center of research-what we term therapist-focused research-and identify one situation where therapist effects appear most apparent. We draw together six substantive conclusions concerning our current view of therapist effects and flag key directions for improving research before concluding with a section on applying research in this field to key areas of practice.Our aim is to introduce readers to the conceptual issues that underpin implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. However, this chapter focuses primarily on therapist effects and is, therefore, only a starting point. For specific perspectives, we direct interested readers to more detailed accounts within this volume (e.g., Chapters 2 and 3 address characteristics and behaviors of effective therapists, as well as statistical and methodological strategies to identify these therapist factors; Chapter 16 discusses what to do with data related to therapist effects in terms of practice, training, and policymaking). DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTSThe term therapist effects encompasses conceptual, clinical, and statistical phenomena that refer to "the contribution that can be attributed to therapists when evaluating the efficacy of a psychological intervention" (Lutz & Barkham, 2015, p. 1). In this sense, therapist effects can be distinguished from reporting on the effectiveness of therapists. Therapist effects refer to the contribution made to the outcome variance that can be apportioned to therapists rather than to other variables, primarily the client. For example, an article might report that 8% of outcome variance was attributable to therapists. This would be sufficient for a clinic to take note and appreciate that it is not just the treatment or therapy that is important for client outcomes. It is predominantly a term used in research but which has widespread implications for clinical practice and policy. The term therapist effects captures the variability that is attributable to therapists. If there was no therapist effect, all therapists would yield identical client outcomes (i.e., there would be no variability). In this scenario, it would not matter which therapist clients see, as outcomes would not vary between therapists.

Sample size tables, including varying sample size conditions, were constructed and study examples given. This study gives an insight into the potential size of the TE and provides researchers with a practical guide to aid the planning of future studies in this field.