Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review.

We face increasing demand for greater access to effective routine mental health services, including telehealth. However, treatment outcomes in routine clinical practice are only about half the size of those reported in controlled trials. Progress feedback, defined as the ongoing monitoring of patients' treatment response with standardized measures, is an evidence-based practice that continues to be under-utilized in routine care. The aim of the current review is to provide a summary of the current evidence base for the use of progress feedback, its mechanisms of action and considerations for successful implementation. We reviewed ten available meta-analyses, which report small to medium overall effect sizes. The results suggest that adding feedback to a wide range of psychological and psychiatric interventions (ranging from primary care to hospitalization and crisis care) tends to enhance the effectiveness of these interventions. The strongest evidence is for patients with common mental health problems compared to those with very severe disorders. Effect sizes for not-on-track cases, a subgroup of cases that are not progressing well, are found to be somewhat stronger, especially when clinical support tools are added to the feedback. Systematic reviews and recent studies suggest potential mechanisms of action for progress feedback include focusing the clinician's attention, altering clinician expectations, providing new information, and enhancing patient-centered communication. Promising approaches to strengthen progress feedback interventions include advanced systems with signaling technology, clinical problem-solving tools, and a broader spectrum of outcome and progress measures. An overview of methodological and implementation challenges is provided, as well as suggestions for addressing these issues in future studies. We conclude that while feedback has modest effects, it is a small and affordable intervention that can potentially improve outcomes in psychological interventions. Further research into mechanisms of action and effective implementation strategies is needed.

The mental health self-direction scale: An abridged version and its sensitivity to change.

OBJECTIVE: The Mental Health Self-Direction Scale (MHSD) measures the extent to which clients are able to resolve mental problems by themselves. Because this scale had not yet been evaluated, the aims of this paper were (a) to evaluate and improve the MHSD and (b) to explore the sensitivity to change of the improved scale. METHOD: The MHSD was evaluated and improved by means of confirmatory factor analyses of data from one longitudinal and two cross-sectional outpatient sample. Inconsistent items were removed in a stepwise fashion. Subsequently, the scale's sensitivity to change was explored in the longitudinal sample by using latent growth curve models. RESULTS: The original 31-item scale was reduced to a more stable version with 19 items that yielded four factors named: actorship, demoralization, commitment, and understanding. Throughout clients' treatment, actorship and understanding tended to increase; demoralization tended to decrease; and commitment remained consistently high. CONCLUSIONS: The abridged MHSD scale is stable and sensitive to change. It measures the extent to which clients experience and develop self-direction throughout their treatment. With the use of the new MHSD scale, new views on mental health that emphasize clients' ability to actively engage and cope with health-challenges can be incorporated into clinical treatment.

Motives of Therapists for Using Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) and How it is Used by Them in Clinical Practice: Two Qualitative Studies.

Despite its demonstrated value, many mental health institutions struggle to implement progress feedback effectively. There is also insufficient information about how therapists utilize progress feedback. To gain more insight, two qualitative studies were conducted. The first study compared the attitudes and motives of therapists who used and those who did not use progress feedback. The second study examined how psychologists incorporated progress feedback into their practice. In total, 23 therapists were interviewed, and the data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The first study found that almost all the therapists had a positive attitude about progress feedback. Those who did not use it indicated reasons such as a heavy workload and patient-related factors, and they also lacked sufficient information about the potential benefits of progress feedback. The second study revealed four major ways in which the therapists utilized feedback, namely: supporting actions to discuss progress feedback, discussing progress feedback with patients, modifications in the ongoing treatment, and peer consultation. However, discussions during peer consultations about using progress feedback for patients who were not benefitting from treatment and how the treatment might be adjusted accordingly were often lacking. In conclusion, it is crucial that training and education be provided to therapists on how to use progress feedback effectively. Having regular discussions about progress feedback during peer consultations could also facilitate its integration into clinical practice.

Disentangling the Therapist Effect: Clustering Therapists by Using Different Treatment Outcomes.

Previous studies have shown that therapists' performance varies, known as therapist effects, and have indicated that therapists who excel in one treatment outcome may not necessarily be effective in other outcomes. This observational naturalistic study aimed to enhance our understanding of therapist effects and the assessment of therapists' performance in different areas. The study included 68 therapists and 5,582 clients from a large mental health facility. Information about their learning activities was available for a subsample of 49 therapists. Separate multilevel analyses were conducted for treatment outcomes, including case mix-corrected OQ-45 change scores, dropout rates, referrals to other facilities, treatment duration, and client satisfaction ratings. A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify groups of therapists based on their performance across various treatment outcomes. Additionally, differences in therapist characteristics among the clusters identified were examined. Therapist effects varied across different outcomes, ranging from small (2.6% for OQ-45 change) to moderate (6.5% for number of sessions). The cluster analysis revealed four distinct clusters of therapists with specific profiles. They had performance differences in certain areas but not in others. This exploratory study supports the notion that therapists exhibit diverse profiles regarding treatment outcomes. These findings are significant for future investigations of therapist effects that aim to identify the characteristics of effective therapists and in the context of personalizing treatment for clients.

Exploring therapist characteristics as potential moderators of the effects of client feedback on treatment outcome.

Although studies have shown that client feedback can improve treatment outcome, little is known about which factors might possibly moderate the effects of such feedback. The present study investigated potential therapist variables that might influence whether frequent client feedback is effective, including the Big Five personality traits, internal/external feedback propensity and self-efficacy. Data from two previous studies, a quasi-experimental study and a randomized controlled trial, were combined. The sample consisted of 38 therapists and 843 clients (55.4% females, mean age = 42.05 years, SD = 11.75) from an outpatient mental health institution. The control condition consisted of cognitive-behavioural therapies combined with low frequency monitoring of clients' symptoms. In the experimental condition, high-intensity (i.e., frequent) client feedback as an add-on to treatment as usual was provided. Outcomes were measured as adjusted post-treatment symptom severity on the Symptom Checklist-90 and drop out from treatment. The final model of the multilevel analyses showed that therapists with higher levels of self-efficacy had poorer treatment outcomes, but when high-intensity client feedback was provided, their effectiveness improved. Furthermore, higher self-efficacy was associated with a higher estimation of therapists' own effectiveness, but therapists' self-assessment of effectiveness was not correlated with their actual effectiveness. The results of this study might indicate that therapists with high levels of self-efficacy benefit from client feedback because it can correct their biases. However, for therapists with low self-efficacy, client feedback might be less beneficial, possibly because it can make them more insecure. These hypotheses need to be investigated in future research.

Therapists' self-assessment of time spent on learning activities and its relationship to treatment outcomes: A replication study.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether therapists' self-assessed time spent on learning activities was associated with treatment outcomes. The study was a replication of Chow et al.'s (2015) study, which showed that the most effective therapists spent more total time on solitary learning activities than less effective therapists. The present study sought to replicate this finding, and it explored the association between 25 specific activities of therapists and clients' treatment outcomes. Also, this study explored which learning activities therapists found most relevant for improving their performance. METHODS: In this naturalistic longitudinal study, data from 2424 outpatients who were being treated by 40 different therapists were analyzed using multilevel analyses. Posttreatment scores on the OQ-45 (controlled for pretreatment client variables) were used to measure treatment outcome. The RAPID Practice-D was used to measure therapists' learning and other activities spent with the aim of improving their therapeutic skills. RESULTS: The results showed that the total amount of time that therapists indicated they spent on learning activities did not predict clients' treatment outcomes. Also, no specific learning activities were related to clients' outcomes. Nevertheless, therapists indicated that they perceived several specific activities to be highly relevant for improving their skills. CONCLUSION: The results showed that therapists' perceptions of how much time they spent on learning activities was not related to their performance. This might suggest that therapists' perceptions of their activities is inaccurate or that they attach value to the wrong activities. It also indicates the importance of not relying solely on the self-assessments of therapists to evaluate a therapist's training and its relationship with outcome.

The effect of feedback-informed cognitive behavioral therapy on treatment outcome: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown that feedback-informed treatment can improve outcomes of psychological treatments. This randomized controlled effectiveness trial evaluated the effect of progress feedback on treatment duration, symptom reduction, and dropout in individual cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs). A control condition where CBT was combined with low-intensive monitoring of progress was compared to an experimental condition where CBT was combined with a high-intensive form of feedback. METHOD: Data of 368 outpatients (57.9% female, mean age 41.4 years, SD = 12.2) in secondary care were analyzed using multilevel analyses. Treatment duration was assessed with the number of sessions clients received. Symptom reduction was measured with the Symptom Checklist Revised. Possible moderators of the effect of intensive progress feedback on outcome were explored. RESULTS: Clients achieved the same amount of symptom reduction in significantly fewer sessions in the high-intensive feedback condition. Additionally, dropout was significantly lower in the high-intensive feedback condition. Post hoc analyses assessing clients' diagnoses as a possible moderator showed that clients with personality disorders (mainly Cluster C) achieved more symptom reduction in fewer sessions when high-intensity feedback was provided. Also, a high degree of implementation within the experimental condition was associated with fewer treatment sessions. CONCLUSION: In sum, the use of high-intensive client feedback reduced treatment duration and reduced dropout of CBT. Thus, feedback-informed CBTs seem to be a promising adaptation of conventional CBT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Improving the efficiency of cognitive-behavioural therapy by using formal client feedback.

OBJECTIVE: Feedback from clients on their view of progress and the therapeutic relationship can improve effectiveness and efficiency of psychological treatments in general. However, what the added value is of client feedback specifically within cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT), is not known. Therefore, the extent to which the outcome of CBT can be improved is investigated by providing feedback from clients to therapists using the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and Session Rating Scale (SRS). METHOD: Outpatients (n = 1006) of a Dutch mental health organization either participated in the "treatment as usual" (TAU) condition, or in Feedback condition of the study. Clients were invited to fill in the ORS and SRS and in the Feedback condition therapists were asked to frequently discuss client feedback. RESULTS: Outcome on the SCL-90 was only improved specifically with mood disorders in the Feedback condition. Also, in the Feedback condition, in terms of process, the total number of required treatment sessions was on average two sessions fewer. CONCLUSION: Frequently asking feedback from clients using the ORS/SRS does not necessarily result in a better treatment outcome in CBT. However, for an equal treatment outcome significantly fewer sessions are needed within the Feedback condition, thus improving efficiency of CBT.