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.

A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme.

BACKGROUND: Progress feedback, also known as measurement-based care (MBC), is the routine collection of patient-reported measures to monitor treatment progress and inform clinical decision-making. Although a key ingredient to improving mental health care, sustained use of progress feedback is poor. Integration into everyday workflow is challenging, impacted by a complex interrelated set of factors across patient, clinician, organizational, and health system levels. This study describes the development of a qualitative coding scheme for progress feedback implementation that accounts for the dynamic nature of barriers and facilitators across multiple levels of use in mental health settings. Such a coding scheme may help promote a common language for researchers and implementers to better identify barriers that need to be addressed, as well as facilitators that could be supported in different settings and contexts. METHODS: Clinical staff, managers, and leaders from two Dutch, three Norwegian, and four mental health organizations in the USA participated in semi-structured interviews on how intra- and extra-organizational characteristics interact to influence the use of progress feedback in clinical practice, supervision, and program improvement. Interviews were conducted in the local language, then translated to English prior to qualitative coding. RESULTS: A team-based consensus coding approach was used to refine an a priori expert-informed and literature-based qualitative scheme to incorporate new understandings and constructs as they emerged. First, this hermeneutic approach resulted in a multi-level coding scheme with nine superordinate categories and 30 subcategories. Second-order axial coding established contextually sensitive categories for barriers and facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome is an empirically derived multi-level qualitative coding scheme that can be used in progress feedback implementation research and development. It can be applied across contexts and settings, with expectations for ongoing refinement. Suggestions for future research and application in practice settings are provided. Supplementary materials include the coding scheme and a detailed playbook.

The results of clinician-focused implementation strategies on uptake and outcomes of Measurement-Based Care (MBC) in general mental health care.

BACKGROUND: Measurement-Based Care (MBC) is the routine administration of measures, clinicians' review of the feedback and discussion of the feedback with their clients, and collaborative evaluation of the treatment plan. Although MBC is a promising way to improve outcomes in clinical practice, the implementation of MBC faces many barriers, and its uptake by clinicians is low. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether implementation strategies that were developed with clinicians and aimed at clinicians had an effect on (a) clinicians' uptake of MBC and (b) clients' outcomes of MBC. METHODS: We used an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design based on Grol and Wensing's implementation framework to assess the impact of clinician-focused implementation strategies on both clinicians' uptake of MBC and outcomes obtained with MBC for clients in general mental health care. We hereby focused on the first and second parts of MBC, i.e., the administration of measures and use of feedback. Primary outcome measures were questionnaire completion rate and discussion of the feedback with clients. Secondary outcomes were treatment outcome, treatment length, and satisfaction with treatment. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of the MBC implementation strategies on questionnaire completion rate (one part of clinicians' uptake), but no significant effect on the amount of discussion of the feedback (the other part of clinicians' uptake). Neither was there a significant effect on clients' outcomes (treatment outcome, treatment length, and satisfaction with treatment). Due to various study limitations, the results should be viewed as exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing and sustaining MBC in real-world general mental health care is complex. This study helps to disentangle the effects of MBC implementation strategies on differential clinician uptake, but the effects of MBC implementation strategies on client outcomes need further examination.

Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Treatment Support Measure (TSM) parent and youth form.

The Treatment Support Measure (TSM) Parent and Youth were created to help clinicians with actionable feedback when youths are not making sufficient progress in treatment. This study examined the psychometric properties of the Dutch TSM Parent and TSM Youth. Parents (n = 172) and youth (n = 122) were recruited at 2 outpatient mental health care institutions. Children of participating parents (50.6% boys) had a mean age of 11.9 years (SD = 3.46; range 4-18). Participating youth (30.3% boys) had a mean age of 15.68 years (SD = 1.75; range 12-18). Participants were asked to complete the TSM and questionnaires measuring related constructs once during treatment. Responses to the TSM Parent items were explained by 9 instead of 5 subscales, and responses to the TSM Youth items were explained by 8 instead of 4 subscales. The internal consistency reliability of both the TSM Parent and the TSM Youth scales was generally good. The convergent validity of the TSM Parent and the TSM Youth was also good, although the divergent validity was less convincing. The criterion validity was inconclusive; the TSM Parent was not able to differentiate between problematic and nonproblematic treatments, but multiple scales of the TSM Youth were able to differentiate between these groups. The TSM Parent and TSM Youth have potential to be helpful tools in clinical practice. They could signal potential barriers to youth progress and direct the conversation between the clinician and youth and parents about adaptation of treatment. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: This is the first study to investigate the psychometric properties of the Treatment Support Measure (TSM) Parent and Youth versions, which are created to help clinicians with actionable feedback when youths are not making sufficient progress in treatment. The Dutch TSM Parent and TSM Youth have moderate to good psychometric properties. The Dutch TSM Parent and TSM Youth might be helpful tools for use in clinical practice: they contain variables that are related to youth outcome, can signal potential barriers to youth progress, and can direct the conversation between the clinician and the youth and parents about adaptation of treatment. The Dutch TSM Parent and TSM Youth could be added to the regular ROM to facilitate both routine monitoring of outcome and direct and concrete aid to the here-and-now relational processes in treatment.

Psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS).

BACKGROUND: The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) was developed in the United States to assess attitudes of mental health and welfare professionals toward evidence-based interventions. Although the EBPAS has been translated in different languages and is being used in several countries, all research on the psychometric properties of the EBPAS within youth care has been carried out in the United States. The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the EBPAS. METHODS: After translation into Dutch, the Dutch version of the EBPAS was examined in a diverse sample of 270 youth care professionals working in five institutions in the Netherlands. We examined the factor structure with both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and the internal consistency reliability. We also conducted multiple linear regression analyses to examine the association of EBPAS scores with professionals' characteristics. It was hypothesized that responses to the EBPAS items could be explained by one general factor plus four specific factors, good to excellent internal consistency reliability would be found, and EBPAS scores would vary by age, sex, and educational level. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution according to the hypothesized dimensions: Requirements, Appeal, Openness, and Divergence. Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.67 to 0.89, and the overall scale alpha was 0.72. The confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the factor structure and suggested that the lower order EBPAS factors are indicators of a higher order construct. However, Divergence was not significantly correlated with any of the subscales or the total score. The confirmatory bifactor analysis endorsed that variance was explained both by a general attitude towards evidence-based interventions and by four specific factors. The regression analyses showed an association between EBPAS scores and youth care professionals' age, sex, and educational level. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides strong support for a structure with a general factor plus four specific factors and internal consistency reliability of the Dutch version of the EBPAS in a diverse sample of youth care professionals. Hence, the factor structure and reliability of the original version of the EBPAS seem generalizable to the Dutch version of the EBPAS.

Effective components of feedback from Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) in youth mental health care: study protocol of a three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Routine Outcome Monitoring refers to regular measurements of clients' progress in clinical practice, aiming to evaluate and, if necessary, adapt treatment. Clients fill out questionnaires and clinicians receive feedback about the results. Studies concerning feedback in youth mental health care are rare. The effects of feedback, the importance of specific aspects of feedback, and the mechanisms underlying the effects of feedback are unknown. In the present study, several potentially effective components of feedback from Routine Outcome Monitoring in youth mental health care in the Netherlands are investigated. METHODS/DESIGN: We will examine three different forms of feedback through a three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial. 432 children and adolescents (aged 4 to 17 years) and their parents, who have been referred to mental health care institution Pro Persona, will be randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions (144 participants per condition). Randomization will be stratified by age of the child or adolescent and by department. All participants fill out questionnaires at the start of treatment, one and a half months after the start of treatment, every three months during treatment, and at the end of treatment. Participants in the second and third feedback conditions fill out an additional questionnaire. In condition 1, clinicians receive basic feedback regarding clients' symptoms and quality of life. In condition 2, the feedback of condition 1 is extended with feedback regarding possible obstacles to a good outcome and with practical suggestions. In condition 3, the feedback of condition 2 is discussed with a colleague while following a standardized format for case consultation. The primary outcome measure is symptom severity and secondary outcome measures are quality of life, satisfaction with treatment, number of sessions, length of treatment, and rates of dropout. We will also examine the role of being not on track (not responding to treatment). DISCUSSION: This study contributes to the identification of effective components of feedback and a better understanding of how feedback functions in real-world clinical practice. If the different feedback components prove to be effective, this can help to support and improve the care for youth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR4234.