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

Bea BG Tiemens¹  Jan Willem Veerman³  Giel GJM Hutschemaekers¹  Maartje AMS van Sonsbeek² 

[1] Pro Persona Centre for Education & Science (ProCES), Tarweweg 6, 6534 AM Nijmegen, The Netherlands;Pro Persona Youth Tiel, Siependaallaan 3, 4003 LE Tiel, The Netherlands;Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands

关键词: Randomized controlled trial;    Youth mental health care;    Feedback;    Routine Outcome Monitoring;   

Others  :  1123846
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-14-3

 received in 2013-12-01, accepted in 2014-01-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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 RegisterNTR4234

【 授权许可】

   
2014 van Sonsbeek et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]GGZNederland: Jeugd-ggz: Investeren in de toekomst! Ambities voor 2011–2014. Amersfoort: GGZNederland; 2011.
• [2]Weisz JR: Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents: Evidence-Based Treatments and Case Examples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
• [3]Warren JS, Nelson PL, Mondragon SA, Baldwin SA, Burlingame GM: Youth psychotherapy change trajectories and outcomes in usual care: Community mental health versus managed care settings. J Consult Clin Psychol 2010, 78:144-155.
• [4]Kazdin AE: Combined and multimodal treatments in child and adolescent psychotherapy: Issues, challenges, and research directions. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1996, 3:69-100.
• [5]Hannan C, Lambert MJ, Harmon C, Nielsen SL, Smart DW, Shimokawa K, Sutton SW: A lab test and algorithms for identifying clients at risk for treatment failure. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:155-163.
• [6]Hatfield D, McCullough L, Frantz SH, Krieger K: Do we know when our clients get worse? An investigation of therapists’ ability to detect negative client change. Clin Psychol Psychother 2010, 17:25-32.
• [7]Bickman L: A measurement feedback system (MFS) is necessary to improve mental health outcomes. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008, 47:1114-1119.
• [8]Lambert MJ, Whipple JL, Hawkins EJ, Vermeersch DA, Nielsen SL, Smart DW: Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 2006, 10:288-301.
• [9]De Jong K: A Chance for Change: Building an Outcome Monitoring Feedback System for Outpatient Mental Health Care. Leiden University: Clinical, Health and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences; 2012.
• [10]Lambert MJ: Prevention of Treatment Failure: The use of Measuring, Monitoring, and Feedback in Clinical Practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010.
• [11]Lambert M: Presidential address: What we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psychother Res 2007, 17:1-14.
• [12]Kazdin AE: Evidence-based treatment and practice: new opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. Am Psychol 2008, 63:146-159.
• [13]Ivers NM, Tu K, Francis J, Barnsley J, Shah B, Upshur R, Kiss A, Grimshaw JM, Zwarenstein M: Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care. Implement Sci 2010, 5:98. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 6:CD000259.
• [15]Carlier IV, Meuldijk D, Van Vliet IM, Van Fenema E, Van der Wee NJ, Zitman FG: Routine Outcome Monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory. J Eval Clin Pract 2012, 18:104-110.
• [16]Knaup C, Koesters M, Schoefer D, Becker T, Puschner B: Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 2009, 195:15-22.
• [17]Shimokawa K, Lambert MJ, Smart DW: 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 2010, 78:298-311.
• [18]Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R: Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 2006, 12:559-568.
• [19]Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, Revicki DA, Symonds T, Parada A, Alonso J: The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:179-193.
• [20]Haywood K, Marshall S, Fitzpatrick R: Patient participation in the consultation process: a structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 63:12-23.
• [21]Sapyta J, Riemer M, Bickman L: Feedback to clinicians: theory, research, and practice. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:145-153.
• [22]Miller SD, Duncan BL, Sorrell R, Brown GS: The partners for change outcome management system. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:199-208.
• [23]Whipple JL, Lambert MJ, Vermeersch DA, Smart DW, Nielsen SL, Hawkins EJ: Improving the effects of psychotherapy: The use of early identification of treatment and problem-solving strategies in routine practice. J Couns Psychol 2003, 50:59-68.
• [24]Haas E, Hill RD, Lambert MJ, Morrell B: Do early responders to psychotherapy maintain treatment gains? J Clin Psychol 2002, 58:1157-1172.
• [25]Lambert MJ, Harmon C, Slade K, Whipple JL, Hawkins EJ: Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients’ progress: clinical results and practice suggestions. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:165-174.
• [26]Kluger AN, DeNisi A: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 1996, 119:254-284.
• [27]Bickman L, Kelley SD, Breda C, De Andrade AR, Riemer M: Effects of routine feedback to clinicians on mental health outcomes of youths: results of a randomized trial. Psychiat Serv 2011, 62:1423-1429.
• [28]Riemer M, Bickman L: Using Program Theory to Link Social Psychology and Program Evaluation. In Social Psychology and Evaluation. Edited by Mark M, Donaldson S, Campbell B. New York: Guilford Press; 2011:104-138.
• [29]Locke EA, Latham GP: A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall; 1990.
• [30]Mugford M, Banfield P, O’Hanlon M: Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review. BMJ 1991, 303:398-402.
• [31]Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, 2:CD000259.
• [32]Harmon C, Hawkins EJ, Lambert MJ, Slade K, Whipple JS: Improving outcomes for poorly responding clients: the use of clinical support tools and feedback to clients. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:175-185.
• [33]Slade K, Lambert MJ, Harmon SC, Smart DW, Bailey R: Improving psychotherapy outcome: the use of immediate electronic feedback and revised clinical support tools. Clin Psychol Psychother 2008, 15:287-303.
• [34]Festinger L: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson; 1957.
• [35]Carver CS, Scheier MF: Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychol Bull 1982, 92:111-135.
• [36]Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS: Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol 1979, 64:349-371.
• [37]De Jong K, Van Sluis P, Nugter MA, Heiser WJ, Spinhoven P: Understanding the differential impact of outcome monitoring: Therapist variables that moderate feedback effects in a randomized clinical trial. Psychother Res 2012, 22:464-474.
• [38]Claiborn CD, Goodyear RK: Feedback in psychotherapy. J Clin Psychol 2005, 61:209-217.
• [39]Simon W, Harris M, Lambert M: The effects of progress and clinical support tools feedback compared to TAU within a hospital-based outpatient clinic [abstract]. Book of Abstracts. Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR) 42nd International Meeting 2011, 29 June - 2 July, Bern, Switzerland 2011, 86.
• [40]Simon W, Lambert MJ, Harris MW, Busath G, Vazquez A: Providing patient progress information and clinical support tools to therapists: effects on patients at risk of treatment failure. Psychother Res 2012, 22:638-647.
• [41]Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, Margison F, McGrath G, Mellor-Clark J, Audin K: Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE—OM. Br J Psychiatry 2002, 180:51-60.
• [42]van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Volker D, De Heer E: Routine Outcome Monitoring: Ontwikkelingen in de GGZ. Utrecht: Trimbos-instituut; 2010.
• [43]Jensen PS, Hoagwood K, Petti T: Outcomes of mental health care for children and adolescents: II. Literature review and application of a comprehensive model. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1996, 35:1064-1077.
• [44]Boer F, Markus MT, Vermeiren RR: Don’t say: stand still, or I can't measure you! routine outcome measurement in child- and adolescent psychiatry. Tijdschr Psychiatr 2012, 54:167-171.
• [45]Barbaresi WJ, Colligan RC, Weaver AL, Voigt RG, Killian JM, Katusic SK: Mortality, ADHD, and Psychosocial Adversity in Adults With Childhood ADHD: A Prospective Study. Pediatrics 2013, 131:637-644.
• [46]Volkmar FR, Wolf JM: When children with autism become adults. World Psychiatry 2013, 12:79-80.
• [47]GGZNederland: Zorg op waarde geschat: update. Sectorrapport GGZ 2010. Amersfoort: GGZNederland; 2010.
• [48]Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT: Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychol Bull 1987, 101:213-222.
• [49]Van der Ende J, Verhulst FC, Tiemeier H: Agreement of informants on emotional and behavioral problems from childhood to adulthood. Psychol Assess 2012, 24:293-300.
• [50]Warren JS, Lambert MJ: Youth Clinical Support Tools Manual. Treatment Support Measure: Parent and Youth Forms. Salt Lake City, UT: OQ Measures LLC; 2013.
• [51]Warren JS, Nelson PL, Burlingame GM, Mondragon SA: Predicting patient deterioration in youth mental health services: community mental health vs. managed care settings. J Clin Psychol 2012, 68:24-40.
• [52]Whipple JL, Lambert MJ: Outcome measures for practice. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2011, 7:87-111.
• [53]Goodman R: The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1997, 38:581-586.
• [54]Van Widenfelt BM, Goedhart AW, Treffers PD, Goodman R: Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003, 12:281-289.
• [55]Muris P, Meesters C, Van den Berg F: The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2003, 12:1-8.
• [56]Stone LL, Otten R, Engels RC, Vermulst AA, Janssens JM: Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4-to 12-year-olds: a review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2010, 13:254-274.
• [57]Ravens-Sieberer U: KIDSCREENgroup: The KIDSCREEN Questionnaires - Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents - Handbook. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2006.
• [58]Ravens-Sieberer U, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Erhart M, Bruil J, Power M, Duer W, Auquier P, Cloetta B, Czemy L, et al.: The KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Value Health 2008, 11:645-658.
• [59]Kok I, Van Wijngaarden B: Cliëntwaardering in de GGZ. Vragenlijsten en handleiding: GGZ Thermometer voor de volwassenenzorg (versie 2003) en GGZ Jeugdthermometer (versie 2003). Utrecht: GGZ Nederland/Trimbos-instituut; 2003.
• [60]Bransen M, Kok I, Van Wijngaarden B: De aanpassing van de GGZ jeugdthermometer versie 2003 tot de GGZ jeugdthermometer versie 2005. Utrecht: Trimbos-instituut; 2005.
• [61]Jacobson NS, Truax P: Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991, 59:12-19.
• [62]Hawkins EJ, Lambert MJ, Vermeersch DA, Slade KL, Tuttle KC: The therapeutic effects of providing patient progress information to therapists and patients. Psychother Res 2004, 14:308-327.
• [63]Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G: Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009, 41:1149-1160.
• [64]Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012.
• [65]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010, 152:726-732.
• [66]Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux P, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c869.