A Scoping Review on Client-Focused Feedback System in Psychotherapy: Routine Outcome Monitoring

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 1, 30 - 46, 31.03.2025

İrem Öztürk , Orçun Yorulmaz

https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.1414793

Öz

Psychologists want to know what works in therapy, what specific factor benefits the individual, and how to improve the quality of therapy outcomes. According to this aim, empirically supported treatments were developed in 2005 and "Evidence-Based Practice" was put forward. Routine Outcome Measure (ROM) is a feedback system which rooted in Evidence-Based Practice. The aim of the current study is to provide information about the ROM method by making a scoping review. EKUAL, PubMed and Scopus databases were scanned. As a result of the screening, 44 studies in the mental health literature that provided information about ROM were included in the study. The findings obtained from 44 studies were evaluated under 6 main headings: Stages of ROM, advantages of ROM, disadvantages of ROM and obstacles to its use, efficacy of ROM, digitalization of ROM and suggestions for the development of ROM. It can be said that ROM is a promising method in terms of improving the quality of therapies. It is expected that studies on ROM and regular use of ROM in therapies will increase in the future

Anahtar Kelimeler

Evidence-Based Practice, Feedback, Psychotherapy, Routine Outcome Monitoring, Scoping Review

Psikoterapide Danışan Odaklı Geribildirim Sistemine Dair Bir Kapsam Derlemesi: Rutin Sonuç İzleme

Öz

Psikologlar psikoterapide neyin işe yaradığını, birey için spesifik olarak neyin fayda ettiğini, psikoterapi çıktılarının kalitesini nasıl arttıracağını bilmek istemektedir. Bu bağlamda 2005 yılında ampirik destekli tedaviler geliştirilerek “Kanıta Dayalı Uygulama (KDU)” öne sürülmüştür. Rutin Sonuç İzlemi (RSİ), KDU’yu temel alan bir geri bildirim sistemidir. Mevcut çalışmanın amacı kapsam derlemesi aracılığıyla RSİ yöntemi hakkında bilgilendirme sunmaktır. EKUAL, PubMed ve Scopus veri tabanlarında tarama yapılmıştır. Taramanın sonucunda ruh sağlığı alan yazınında yer alan ve RSİ hakkında bilgi veren 44 araştırma çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. 44 çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular RSİ’nin aşamaları, RSİ’nin avantajları, RSİ’nin dezavantajları ve kullanımına dair engeller, RSİ’nin etkinliği, RSİ’nin dijitalleşmesi ve RSİ’nin geliştirilmesine dair öneriler olmak üzere 6 ana başlık altında değerlendirilmiştir. RSİ’nin psikoterapilerin kalitesinin arttırılması bakımından umut verici bir yöntem olduğu söylenebilir. Gelecekte RSİ’ye dair çalışmaların ve psikoterapilerde düzenli RSİ kullanımının artması beklenmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Geri Bildirim, Kanıta Dayalı Uygulama, Psikoterapi, Rutin Sonuç İzleme, Kapsam Derlemesi

Kaynakça

• Adams JL, Gaynes BN, McGuinness T, Modi R, Willig J, Pence BW (2012) Treating depression within the HIV ‘‘Medical Home’’: a guided algorithm for Antidepressant Management by HIV Clinicians. AIDS Patient Care STDS, 26:647-654.
• Ægisdóttir S, White MJ, Spengler PM, Maugherman AS, Anderson LA, Cook, RS et al. (2006) The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Couns Psychol, 34:341-382.
• APA (2006) American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice: Evidence-based practice in psychology. Am Psychol, 61:271-285.
• Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol, 8:9-32.
• Baier AL, Kline AC, Feeny NC (2020) Therapeutic alliance as a mediator of change: a systematic review and evaluation of research. Clin Psychol Rev, 82:101921.
• Barkham M, Margison F, Leach C, Lucock M, Mellor-Clark J, Evans C et al. (2001) Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Towards practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. J Consult Clin Psychol, 69:184-196.
• Barkham M, Mellor-Clark J, Connell J, Cahill J (2006) A core approach to practice-based evidence: a brief history of the origins and applications of the CORE-OM and CORE System. Couns Psychother Res, 6:3-15.
• Barkham M, De Jong K, Delgadillo J, Lutz W (2023) Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and feedback: research review and recommendations. Psychother Res, 33:841-855.
• Bear HA, Dalzell K, Edbrooke‐Childs J, Wolpert M (2022) Applying behaviour change theory to understand the barriers to implementing routine outcome monitoring. Br J Clin Psychol, 61:557-578.
• Beck AK, Kelly PJ, Deane FP, Baker AL, Hides L, Manning V et al. (2021) Developing a mHealth routine outcome monitoring and feedback app (“Smart track”) to support self-management of addictive behaviours. Front Psychiatry, 12:677637.
• Bickman L, Kelley SD, Athay M (2012) The technology of measurement feedback systems. Couple Family Psychol, 1:274-284.
• Boswell JF, Kraus DR, Miller SD, Lambert MJ (2015) Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychother Res, 25:6-19.
• Burgess P, Pirkis J, Coombs T (2015) Routine outcome measurement in Australia. Int Rev Psychiatry, 27:264-275.
• Chambless DL (1993) Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures: A Report Adopted by the Division 12 Board-October 1993. Washington DC, American Psychological Association.
• Chambless DL, Sanderson WC, Shoham V, Johnson SB, Pope KS, Crits-Christoph P et al. (1996) An update on empirically validated therapies. Clin Psychol, 49:5-18.
• Coley RY, Boggs JM, Beck A, Hartzler AL, Simon GE (2020) Defining success in measurement-based care for depression: a comparison of common metrics. Psychiatr Serv, 71:312-318.
• Crits-Christoph P, Ring-Kurtz S, Hamilton JL, Lambert MJ, Gallop R, McClure B et al. (2012) A preliminary study of the effects of individual patient-level feedback in outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. J Subst Abuse Treat, 42:301-309.
• De Beurs E, den Hollander‐Gijsman ME, van Rood YR, Van der Wee NJ, Giltay EJ, van Noorden MS et al. (2011) Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web‐based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clin Psychol Psychother, 18:1-12.
• De Jong K, van Sluis P, Nugter MA, Heiser WJ, Spinhoven P (2012) Understanding the differential impact of outcome monitoring: therapist variables that moderate feedback effects in a randomized clinical trial. Psychother Res, 22:464-474.
• De Jong K, Conijn JM, Gallagher R, Reshetnikova AS, Heij M, Lutz MC (2021) Using progress feedback to improve outcomes and reduce drop-out, treatment duration, and deterioration: a multilevel meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev, 85:102002.
• Delgadillo J, de Jong K, Lucock M, Lutz W, Rubel J, Gilbody S et al. (2018) Feedback-informed treatment versus usual psychological treatment for depression and anxiety: a multisite, open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry, 5:564-572.
• Drew P, Irvine A, Barkham M, Faija C, Gellatly J, Ardern K et al. (2021) Telephone delivery of psychological interventions: balancing protocol with patient-centred care. Soc Sci Med, 277:113818.
• Duncan BL, Reese RJ (2015) The partners for change outcome management system (PCOMS): revisiting the client’s frame of reference. Psychotherapy (Chic), 52:391-401.
• Espel‐Huynh H, Thompson‐Brenner H, Boswell JF, Zhang F, Juarascio AS, Lowe MR (2020) Development and validation of a progress monitoring tool tailored for use in intensive eating disorder treatment. Eur Eat Disord Rev, 28:223-236.
• Evans C, Mellor-Clark J, Margison F, Barkham M, Audin K, Connell J et al. (2000) CORE: clinical outcomes in routine evaluation. J Ment Health, 9:247-255.
• Faija CL, Bee P, Lovell K, Lidbetter N, Gellatly J, Ardern K et al. (2022) Using routine outcome measures as clinical process tools: maximising the therapeutic yield in the IAPT programme when working remotely. Psychol Psychother, 95:820-837.
• Farmer CC, Mitchell KS, Parker-Guilbert K, Galovski TE (2017) Fidelity to the cognitive processing therapy protocol: evaluation of critical elements. Behav Ther, 48:195-206.
• Fluckiger C, Del Re AC, Wampold BE, Horvath AO (2018) The alliance in adult psychotherapy: a meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy (Chic), 55:316-340.
• Foa EB, Meadows EA (1997) Psychosocial treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder: a critical review. Annu Rev Psychol, 48:449-480.
• Gray RM, Kelly PJ, Beck AK, Baker AL, Deane FP, Neale J et al. (2020) A qualitative exploration of SMART Recovery meetings in Australia and the role of a digital platform to support routine outcome monitoring. Addict Behav, 101:106144.
• Greenhalgh J, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Dalkin S, Wright J, Valderas J et al (2018) How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 2:42-70.
• Hatfield DR, Ogles BM (2004) The use of outcome measures by psychologists in clinical practice. Prof Psychol Res Pr, 35:485-491.
• Howard KI, Moras K, Brill PL, Martinovich Z, Lutz W (1996) Evaluation of psychotherapy. Efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. Am Psychol, 51:1059-1064.
• Ionita G, Fitzpatrick M (2014) Bringing science to clinical practice: a Canadian survey of psychological practice and usage of progress monitoring measures. Can Psychol, 55:187-196.
• Iorfino F, Cross SP, Davenport T, Carpenter JS, Scott E, Shiran S et al. (2019) A digital platform designed for youth mental health services to deliver personalized and measurement-based care. Front Psychiatry, 10:595.
• Jensen-Doss A, Haimes EMB, Smith AM, Lyon AR, Lewis CC, Stanick CF et al. (2018) Monitoring treatment progress and providing feedback is viewed favorably but rarely used in practice. Adm Policy Ment Health, 45:48-61.
• Kendrick T, Moore M, Gilbody S, Churchill R, Stuart B, El-Gohary M (2014) Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 7:CD011119.
• Kidd C, Connor JP, Feeney GF, Gullo MJ (2022) Improving assessment and progress monitoring in alcohol use disorder: an implementation evaluation of the instant assessment and personalised feedback system (iAx). Addict Behav, 135:107438.
• Knapstad M, Nordgreen T, Smith OR (2018) Prompt mental health care, the Norwegian version of IAPT: clinical outcomes and predictors of change in a multicenter cohort study. BMC Psychiatry, 18:260.
• Kraus DR, Seligman D, Jordan JR (2005) Validation of a behavioral health treatment outcome and assessment tool designed for naturalistic settings: The Treatment Outcome Package. J Clin Psychol, 61:285-314.
• Kraus DR, Boswell JF, Wright AGC, Castonguay LG, Pincus AL (2010) Factor structure of the treatment outcome package for children. J Clin Psychol, 66:627-640.
• Lambert MJ, Burlingame GM, Umphress V, Hansen NB, Vermeersch DA, Clouse GC et al. (1996) The reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clin Psychol Psychother, 3:249-258.
• Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Vermeersch DA, Smart DW, Hawkins EJ, Nielsen SL et al. (2002a) Enhancing psychotherapy outcomes via providing feedback on client progress: a replication. Clin Psychol Psychother, 9:91-103.
• Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Bishop MJ, Vermeersch DA, Gray GV, Finch AE (2002b) Comparison of empirically derived and rationally derived methods for identifying clients at risk for treatment failure. Clin Psychol Psychother, 9:149-164.
• Lambert MJ, Bergin AE, Garfield SL (2004) Overview, trends, and future issues. In Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (Eds MJ Lambert):805-821. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.
• Lambert M (2007) Presidential address: What we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psychother Res, 17: 1-14.
• Lambert MJ (2010) Prevention of Treatment Failure: The Use of Measuring, Monitoring and Feedback in Clinical Practice. Washington, American Psychological Association.
• Lambert MJ, Shimokawa K (2011) Collecting client feedback. Psychotherapy (Chic), 48:72-79.
• Lambert MJ, Kahler M, Harmon C, Burlingame GM, Shimokawa K, White MM (2013) Administration and Scoring Manual. Outcome Questionnaire OQ®-45.2 (Rev ed.), Salt Lake City, UT, OQMeasures.
• Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Kleinstauber M (2018) Collecting and delivering progress feedback: a meta-analysis of routine outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy (Chic), 55:520-537.
• Lampropoulos GK (2010) A reexamination of the empirically supported treatments critiques. Psychother Res, 10:474-487.
• Lennox RD, Sternquist MA, Paredes A (2013) A simplified method for routine outcome monitoring after drug abuse treatment. Subst Abuse, 7:155-169.
• Luborsky L, Diguer L, Seligman DA, Rosenthal R, Krause ED, Johnson S et al. (1999) The researcher’s own therapy allegiances: a “wild card” in comparisons of treatment efficacy. Clin Psychol (New York), 6:95-106.
• Lutz W, De Jong K, Rubel JA, Delgadillo J (2021) Measuring, predicting, and tracking change in psychotherapy. In Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (Eds M Barkham, W Lutz, LG Castonguay):89-133. Hoboken, NJ, Wiley.
• Malins S, Moghaddam N, Morriss R, Schröder T (2020) Extending the use of routine outcome monitoring: predicting long-term outcomes in cognitive behavioral therapy for severe health anxiety. Psychother Res, 30:662-674.
• Miller SD, Duncan BL, Brown J, Sparks J, Claud D (2003) The outcome rating scale: a preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2:91-100.
• Miller SD, Duncan BL, Sorrell R, Brown GS (2004) The partners for change outcome management system. J Clin Psychol, 61:199-208.
• Mulder R, Murray G, Rucklidge J (2017) Common versus specific factors in psychotherapy: opening the black box. Lancet Psychiatry, 4:953-962.
• Murphy JK, Michalak EE, Liu J, Colquhoun H, Burton, H, Yang X et al. (2021) Barriers and facilitators to implementing measurement-based care for depression in Shanghai, China: a situational analysis. BMC Psychiatry, 21:430.
• National Institue of Mental Health [NIMH] (2023) Dissemination and implementation research program. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/organization/dsir/services-research-and-epidemiology-branch/dissemination-and-implementation-research-program (Accessed 09.11.2023).
• Norcross JC, Wampold BE (2011) What works for whom: tailoring psychotherapy to the person. J Clin Psychol, 67:127-132.
• Norcross JC, Pfund RA, Cook DM (2022) The predicted future of psychotherapy: A decennial e-Delphi poll. Prof Psychol Res Pr, 53:109-115.
• Persons JB, Koerner K, Eidelman P, Thomas C, Liu H (2016) Increasing psychotherapists’ adoption and implementation of the evidence-based practice of progress monitoring. Behav Res Ther, 76:24-31.
• Peterson PA, Fagan C (2021) Improving measurement feedback systems for measurement-based care. Psychother Res, 31:184-199.
• Pierce M, Bird SM, Hickman M, Marsden J, Dunn G, Jones A et al. (2016) Impact of treatment for opioid dependence on fatal drug-related poisoning: a national cohort study in England. Addiction, 111:298-308.
• Pinner DH, Kivlighan DMIII (2018) The ethical implications and utility of routine outcome monitoring in determining boundaries of competence in practice. Prof Psychol Res Pr, 49:247-254.
• Pinsof WM, Wynne LC (2000) Toward progress research: closing the gap between family therapy practice and research. J Marital Fam Ther, 26:1.
• Restifo E, Kashyap S, Hooke GR, Page AC (2015) Daily monitoring of temporal trajectories of suicidal ideation predict self-injury: a novel application of patient progress monitoring. Psychother Res, 25:705-713.
• Rise MB, Eriksen L, Grimstad H, Steinsbekk A (2016) The long-term effect on mental health symptoms and patient activation of using patient feedback scales in mental health out-patient treatment. A randomised controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns, 99:164-168.
• Russell KC, Gillis HL, Law L, Couillard J (2018) A pilot study examining outcomes associated with the implementation of progress monitoring at a substance use disorder treatment program for adolescents. Child Youth Care Forum, 47:403-419.
• Shimokawa K, Lambert MJ, Smart DW (2010) Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. J Consult Clin Psychol, 78:298-311.
• Siniscalchi KA, Broome ME, Fish J, Ventimiglia J, Thompson J, Roy P, et al. (2020) Depression screening and measurement-based care in primary care. J Prim Care Community Health, 11: 2150132720931261.
• Tasma M, Swart M, Wolters G, Liemburg E, Bruggeman R, Knegtering H et al. (2016) Do routine outcome monitoring results translate to clinical practice? A cross-sectional study in patients with a psychotic disorder. BMC Psychiatry, 16:107.
• Tauscher JS, Cohn EB, Johnson TR, Diteman KD, Ries RK, Atkins DC et al. (2021) What do clinicians want? Understanding frontline addiction treatment clinicians’ preferences and priorities to improve the design of measurement-based care technology. Addict Sci Clin Pract, 16:38.
• Toker A (2022) Bir araştırma metodolojisi olarak sistematik literatür incelemesi: meta-sentez yöntemi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22:313-340.
• Tilden T, Wampold BE (2017) Routine Outcome Monitoring in Couple and Family Therapy. How, When, and Why Do People Change Through Psychological Interventions. Berlin, Springer.
• Van Os J, Guloksuz S, Vijn TW, Hafkenscheid A, Delespaul P (2019) The evidencebased group-level symptom-reduction model as the organizing principle for mental health care: time for change? World Psychiatry, 18:88-96.
• Van Sonsbeek MA, Hutschemaekers GG, Veerman JW Tiemens BB (2014) 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. BMC Psychiatry, 14:3.
• Walfish S, McAlister B, O’Donnell P, Lambert MJ (2012) An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Psychol Rep, 110:639-644.
• Wampold BE (2001) The Great Psychotherapy Debate: Models, Methods, and Findings. New Jersey, Erlbaum.
• Weingarten S, Garb CT, Blumenthal D, Boren SA, Brown GD (2000) Improving preventive care by prompting physicians. Arch Intern Med, 160:301-308.
• Wiebe DE, Remers S, Nippak P, Meyer, J (2021) Evaluation of an online system for routine outcome monitoring: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Mental Health, 8:e29243.
• Young AS, Mintz J, Cohen AN (2004) Using information systems to improve care for persons with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv, 55:253-255.
• Young AS, Niv N, Chinman M, Dixon L, Eisen SV, Fischer EP et al. (2011) Routine outcomes monitoring to support improving care for schizophrenia: report from the VA Mental Health QUERI. Community Ment Health J, 47:123-135.
• Zimmerman M, McGlinchey JB (2008) Why don’t psychiatrists use scales to measure outcome when treating depressed patients? J Clin Psychiatry, 69:1916-1919.