arbiter
JournalsAccount

Key considerations for patient choice and development of alternatives: Commentary on Rubenstein et al. (2024).

Carmen P. McLean & Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman

American Psychologist2026https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001546article
ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This commentary considers some of the issues raised by Rubenstein et al. (2024) using the framework of shared decision making and suggests next steps for research that will improve our ability to identify treatment approaches that will best support individual recovery. We highlight points of agreement with the authors, including the importance of treatment acceptability, but underscore the importance of simultaneously considering the strength of evidence for different treatments during shared decision making. Further research on emerging nontrauma-focused treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder is warranted, as is further research on adaptations and refinements to exposure therapy and trauma-focused treatment that demonstrate good clinical outcomes and acceptability. We also suggest that better assessment of trauma characteristics in clinical research may advance our understanding of prognostic treatment factors and our ability to predict which treatments will work best for which individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder and provide valuable information for the shared decision-making process. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001546

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{carmen2026,
  title        = {{Key considerations for patient choice and development of alternatives: Commentary on Rubenstein et al. (2024).}},
  author       = {Carmen P. McLean & Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman},
  journal      = {American Psychologist},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001546},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Key considerations for patient choice and development of alternatives: Commentary on Rubenstein et al. (2024).

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.