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.

Making cities mental health friendly for adolescents and young adults.

Urban life shapes the mental health of city dwellers, and although cities provide access to health, education and economic gain, urban environments are often detrimental to mental health1,2. Increasing urbanization over the next three decades will be accompanied by a growing population of children and adolescents living in cities3. Shaping the aspects of urban life that influence youth mental health could have an enormous impact on adolescent well-being and adult trajectories4. We invited a multidisciplinary, global group of researchers, practitioners, advocates and young people to complete sequential surveys to identify and prioritize the characteristics of a mental health-friendly city for young people. Here we show a set of ranked characteristic statements, grouped by personal, interpersonal, community, organizational, policy and environmental domains of intervention. Life skills for personal development, valuing and accepting young people's ideas and choices, providing safe public space for social connection, employment and job security, centring youth input in urban planning and design, and addressing adverse social determinants were priorities by domain. We report the adversities that COVID-19 generated and link relevant actions to these data. Our findings highlight the need for intersectoral, multilevel intervention and for inclusive, equitable, participatory design of cities that support youth mental health.

What treatment outcomes matter in adolescent depression? A Q-study of priority profiles among mental health practitioners in the UK and Chile.

Evidence-based and person-centred care requires the measurement of treatment outcomes that matter to youth and mental health practitioners. Priorities, however, may vary not just between but also within stakeholder groups. This study used Q-methodology to explore differences in outcome priorities among mental health practitioners from two countries in relation to youth depression. Practitioners from the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 27) and Chile (n = 15) sorted 35 outcome descriptions by importance and completed brief semi-structured interviews about their sorting rationale. By-person principal component analysis (PCA) served to identify distinct priority profiles within each country sample; second-order PCA examined whether these profiles could be further reduced into cross-cultural "super profiles". We identified three UK outcome priority profiles (Reduced symptoms and enhanced well-being; improved individual coping and self-management; improved family coping and support), and two Chilean profiles (Strengthened identity and enhanced insight; symptom reduction and self-management). These could be further reduced into two cross-cultural super profiles: one prioritized outcomes related to reduced depressive symptoms and enhanced well-being; the other prioritized outcomes related to improved resilience resources within youth and families. A practitioner focus on symptom reduction aligns with a long-standing focus on symptomatic change in youth depression treatment studies, and with recent measurement recommendations. Less data and guidance are available to those practitioners who prioritize resilience outcomes. To raise the chances that such practitioners will engage in evidence-based practice and measurement-based care, measurement guidance for a broader set of outcomes may be needed.

New living evidence resource of human and non-human studies for early intervention and research prioritisation in anxiety, depression and psychosis.

In anxiety, depression and psychosis, there has been frustratingly slow progress in developing novel therapies that make a substantial difference in practice, as well as in predicting which treatments will work for whom and in what contexts. To intervene early in the process and deliver optimal care to patients, we need to understand the underlying mechanisms of mental health conditions, develop safe and effective interventions that target these mechanisms, and improve our capabilities in timely diagnosis and reliable prediction of symptom trajectories. Better synthesis of existing evidence is one way to reduce waste and improve efficiency in research towards these ends. Living systematic reviews produce rigorous, up-to-date and informative evidence summaries that are particularly important where research is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain and new findings might change policy or practice. Global Alliance for Living Evidence on aNxiety, depressiOn and pSychosis (GALENOS) aims to tackle the challenges of mental health science research by cataloguing and evaluating the full spectrum of relevant scientific research including both human and preclinical studies. GALENOS will also allow the mental health community-including patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and funders-to better identify the research questions that most urgently need to be answered. By creating open-access datasets and outputs in a state-of-the-art online resource, GALENOS will help identify promising signals early in the research process. This will accelerate translation from discovery science into effective new interventions for anxiety, depression and psychosis, ready to be translated in clinical practice across the world.

The importance of shared research goals for a world in which no one is held back by mental health problems.

The importance of shared research goals for a world in which no one is held back by mental health problems.

What treatment outcomes matter most? A Q-study of outcome priority profiles among youth with lived experience of depression.

Interest in youth perspectives on what constitutes an important outcome in the treatment of depression has been growing, but limited attention has been given to heterogeneity in outcome priorities, and minority viewpoints. These are important to consider for person-centred outcome tracking in clinical practice, or when conducting clinical trials targeting specific populations. This study used Q-methodology to identify outcome priority profiles among youth with lived experience of service use for depression. A purposive sample of 28 youth (aged 16-21 years) rank-ordered 35 outcome statements by importance and completed brief semi-structured interviews eliciting their sorting rationales. By-person principal component analysis was used to identify outcome priority profiles based on all Q-sort configurations. Priority profiles were described and interpreted with reference to the qualitative interview data. Four distinct outcome priority profiles were identified: "Relieving distress and experiencing a happier emotional state"; "Learning to cope with cyclical distressing emotional states"; "Understanding and processing distressing emotional states"; and "Reduced interference of ongoing distressing emotional states with daily life". All four profiles prioritised improvements in mood and the ability to feel pleasure but differed in the level of importance assigned to learning coping skills, processing experiences, and the reduced interference of depression with life and identity. As part of a person-centered approach to care delivery, care providers should routinely engage young people in conversation and shared decision-making about the types of change they would like to prioritise and track during treatment, beyond a common core of consensus outcomes.

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in child and youth mental health: synthesising the use of theory, intervention functions, and behaviour change techniques.

Reviews around interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) for child and youth mental health have produced inconclusive findings on what approaches increase participation. Importantly, the previous reviews did not explore the use of theory, as well as mechanisms of change (intervention functions) and active units of change (behaviour change techniques). The aim of this review was to explore these factors and ascertain how, if at all, these contribute to SDM. Five databases were searched up until April 2020. Studies met inclusion criteria if they were: (a) an intervention to facilitate SDM; (b) aimed at children, adolescence, or young people aged up to 25, with a mental health difficulty, or their parents/guardians; and (c) included a control group. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, study design, intervention, theoretical background, intervention functions, behaviour change techniques, and SDM. Quality assessment of the studies was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool. Eight different interventions met inclusion criteria. The role of theory to increase SDM remains unclear. Specific intervention functions, such as 'education' on SDM and treatment options and 'environmental restructuring' using decision aids, are being used in SDM interventions, as well as 'training' for clinicians. Similarly, behaviour change techniques linked to these, such as 'adding objects to the environment', 'discussing pros/cons', and clinicians engaging in 'behavioural practice/rehearsal'. However, as most studies scored low on the quality assessment criteria, as well as a small number of studies included and a low number of behaviour change techniques utilised, links between behaviour change techniques, intervention functions and increased participation remain tentative. Intervention developers and clinicians may wish to consider specific intervention functions and behaviour change techniques to facilitate SDM.

How does the British public understand mental health? A qualitative analysis of open-text responses.

BACKGROUND: An individual's understanding of mental health can influence their attitudes towards those experiencing mental health problems, and also impact their response to any mental health problems they experience. However, what the lay public understand about mental health is not well explored in existing research. AIMS: This study aims to gain a deeper insight into what the general public understand by the term 'mental health problem'. METHODS: Data were taken from a large-scale representative sample of adults from Great Britain (n = 2,708). A thematic analysis was carried out on an open-text question which asked people what they understood by the term 'mental health problem'. RESULTS: Six themes were identified in the thematic analysis, which included understanding mental health through thinking about cause and effect, thinking about the location of mental health problems in the body, the universality and variation of mental health problems, reflections on lived experience and identifying a specific mental health problem. CONCLUSION: The analysis suggests that there are many diverse ways the public conceptualises mental health. The themes identified may be useful for future quantitative analyses, and also may suggest how information about mental health can be best communicated to the public.

Are We Comparing Apples with Oranges? Assessing Improvement Across Symptoms, Functioning, and Goal Progress for Adolescent Anxiety and Depression.

Strategies for comparing routinely collected outcome data across services or systems include focusing on a common indicator (e.g., symptom change) or aggregating results from different measures or outcomes into a comparable core metric. The implications of either approach for judging treatment success are not fully understood. This study drew on naturalistic outcome data from 1641 adolescents with moderate or severe anxiety and/or depression symptoms who received routine specialist care across 60 mental health services in England. The study compared rates of meaningful improvement between the domains of internalizing symptoms, functioning, and progress towards self-defined goals. Consistent cross-domain improvement was observed in only 15.6% of cases. Close to one in four (24.0%) young people with reliably improved symptoms reported no reliable improvement in functioning. Inversely, one in three (34.8%) young people reported meaningful goal progress but no reliable symptom improvement. Monitoring systems that focus exclusively on symptom change risk over- or under-estimating actual impact, while aggregating different outcomes into a single metric can mask informative differences in the number and type of outcomes showing improvement. A move towards harmonized outcome measurement approaches across multiple domains is needed to ensure fair and meaningful comparisons.

How to manage endings in unsuccessful therapy: A qualitative comparison of youth and clinician perspectives.

Background: Approximately half of those who access child and adolescent mental health services do not show measurable improvement in symptoms. This study aimed to provide practice recommendations for managing treatment endings, particularly when outcomes have not improved. Method: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 26 young people with a history of anxiety and/or depression along with 7 roundtable sessions with 52 mental health clinicians. Data were analyzed using Framework Analysis. Results: A common experience for young people when outcomes did not improve was a poor experience of the treatment ending, which often resulted in setbacks in their mental health and feelings of loss and abandonment. Clinicians agreed that ending was hard for young people and reported that they found managing ending hard on a personal and professional level. This was compounded by unrealistically high public expectations about the impact of therapy on outcomes and trying to strike a balance between fostering hope and managing expectations, within a context of inflexible service structures and resource constraint. Implications: Recommendations include establishing expectations from the outset and a shared understanding of what outcomes matter most to the young person. This can be achieved through communicating honestly about likely outcomes, while also providing hope.

Applying behaviour change theory to understand the barriers to implementing routine outcome monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is a valuable tool for monitoring client progress and pre-empting deterioration, however, there is considerable variation in how data are collected and recorded and uptake in clinical practice remains low. The aim of this study was to develop a self-report measure of practitioner attitudes to ROM in order to better understand the barriers to successful implementation in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). METHODS: An anonymous survey was completed by 184 CAMHS practitioners in the United Kingdom. The survey was designed using the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B). Practitioners who reported using ROM frequently in their clinical work (53%) were compared to those who used ROM infrequently (47%) across dimensions of the COM-B survey subscales. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the proposed four-factor structure, showing acceptable model fit, with high factor loadings and good reliability for all subscales. Frequent users of ROM exhibited significantly higher psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity, and motivation, compared to infrequent users F (4, 140) = 14.76, p < .0001; Pillai's Trace = .297, partial η2 = .30. Results highlight several barriers to ROM, including the belief that there is not a strong evidence base for ROM, not receiving external training, and not discussing feedback and outcome data in supervision. IMPLICATIONS: In the hope of improving the successful implementation of ROM, this research provides an evidence-based tool for assessing practitioners' attitudes to ROM, which map on to intervention functions and represent targets for future implementation efforts. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The value of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) as a means to measure client progress and to elevate the efficiency and quality of mental health care is well-documented in the research literature, however, uptake in practice remains relatively low. This study applied behaviour change theory to develop a psychometrically sound self-report measure of practitioners' perspectives and practices to understand the barriers to implementation in child and adolescent mental health services in the United Kingdom. The complex and multifaceted nature of the barriers to implementation requires multilevel behaviour change strategies at the client, clinician, and organisational level. Recommendations for practice include the need for integrated, multilevel strategies aimed at improving practitioners' capabilities and motivations, strong organisational leadership and a culture of data gathering and sharing, and implementation interventions, which are tailored to target local barriers.

The challenge of ensuring affordability, sustainability, consistency, and adaptability in the common metrics agenda.

Mental health research grapples with research waste and stunted field progression caused by inconsistent outcome measurement across studies and clinical settings, which means there is no common language for considering findings. Although recognising that no gold standard measures exist and that all existing measures are flawed in one way or another, anxiety and depression research is spearheading a common metrics movement to harmonise measurement, with several initiatives over the past 5 years recommending the consistent use of specific scales to allow read-across of measurements between studies. For this approach to flourish, however, common metrics must be acceptable and adaptable to a range of contexts and populations, and global access should be as easy and affordable as possible, including in low-income countries. Within a measurement landscape dominated by fixed proprietary measures and with competing views of what should be measured, achieving this goal poses a range of challenges. In this Personal View, we consider tensions between affordability, sustainability, consistency, and adaptability that, if not addressed, risk undermining the common metrics agenda. We outline a three-pronged way forward that involves funders taking more direct responsibility for measure development and dissemination; a move towards managing measure dissemination and adaptation via open-access measure hubs; and transitioning from fixed questionnaires to item banks. We argue that now is the time to start thinking of mental health metrics as 21st century tools to be co-owned and co-created by the mental health community, with support from dedicated infrastructure, coordinating bodies, and funders.

Understanding the illness representations of young people with anxiety and depression: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Many young people with anxiety or depression drop out of treatment early, and/or leave treatment without showing measurably improved symptom levels. To enhance treatment engagement and effectiveness, it is critical to better understand how young people's perceptions of the symptoms, causes, consequences, treatability, and course of their anxiety and depression influence engagement. AIM: This study aimed to provide a qualitative account of illness perceptions among youth with anxiety and depression by applying the Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM), which was developed in physical health contexts. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 26 young people (aged 16-24, 73% female) with a history of anxiety and/or depression. Interviews were analysed using a combination of theory- and data-driven analysis techniques, consisting primarily of deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The five themes broadly mapped onto the dimensions of the CSM, suggesting parallels in how mental and physical health problems are perceived. Anxiety and depression were viewed as non-linear, relapsing and remitting, but lifelong conditions, with a fluctuating and complex path to recovery and coping. Youth described pervasive negative impacts on their lives, but also described some positive aspects. IMPLICATIONS: Better understanding of young people's illness beliefs has the potential to open a range of intervention possibilities by prioritizing young people's illness perceptions over the clinician's understanding and the supposed objective condition severity and trajectory. Although this study supported a common structure of illness beliefs, the content of these beliefs was idiosyncratic and specific to anxiety and depression, suggesting the need to develop a valid tool to measure illness perceptions in this group. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Our findings suggest that illness perceptions are complex, highly idiosyncratic, and specific to youth anxiety and depression. Given the complexity of these beliefs and the known association with important treatment- and health-related outcomes, it is important that clinical formulation incorporates young people's illness belief models, including their perceptions of symptoms, cause, timeline to recovery, consequences, and personal and treatment control. To increase help-seeking, treatment engagement and adaptive coping strategies, therapy should work to a shared understanding of illness beliefs. Increasing congruence between the belief models of young people, families, and clinicians may serve to improve treatment benefits and address the unmet mental health needs of young people.