Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review
de Jong, Kim; Douglas, Susan; Wolpert, Miranda; Delgadillo, Jaime; Aas, Benjamin; Bovendeerd, Bram; Carlier, Ingrid; Compare, Angelo; Edbrooke-Childs, Julian; Janse, Pauline; Lutz, Wolfgang; Moltu, Christian; Nordberg, Samuel; Poulsen, Stig; Rubel, Julian A.; Schiepek, Günter; Schilling, Viola N. L. S.; van Sonsbeek, Maartje; Barkham, Michael
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Published version
View/ Open
Date
2024Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
- Import fra CRIStin [3784]
- Institutt for helse- og omsorgsvitskap [2912]
Original version
10.1007/s10488-024-01381-3Abstract
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.