Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review

Kim de Jong¹, Susan Douglas², Miranda Wolpert³, Jaime Delgadillo⁴, Benjamin Aas^{5

6}, Bram Bovendeerd^{7

8}, Ingrid Carlier⁹, Angelo Compare¹⁰, Julian Edbrooke-Childs¹¹, Pauline Janse¹², Wolfgang Lutz¹³, Christian Moltu^{14

15}, Samuel Nordberg¹⁶, Stig Poulsen¹⁷, Julian A Rubel¹⁸, Günter Schiepek¹⁹, Viola N L S Schilling¹³, Maartje van Sonsbeek¹², Michael Barkham⁴

Affiliations

¹ Clinical Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands. KJong@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.
² Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
³ Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, United Kingdom, UK.
⁴ Clinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
⁵ Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
⁶ Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
⁷ Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
⁸ Dimence, Center for mental health care, Deventer, The Netherlands.
⁹ Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
¹⁰ Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
¹¹ Evidence Based Practice Unit, Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, University College London, London, UK.
¹² Pro Persona Research, Renkum, The Netherlands.
¹³ Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.
¹⁴ District General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.
¹⁵ Department of Health and Caring Science, Western Norway University of Applied Science, Førde, Norway.
¹⁶ Department of Behavioral Health, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, MA, USA.
¹⁷ Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
¹⁸ Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Salzburg, Austria.
¹⁹ Institute of Synergetics and Psychotherapy Research, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

PMID: 38733413
PMCID: PMC11703940
DOI: 10.1007/s10488-024-01381-3

Review

Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review

Kim de Jong et al. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2025 Jan.

. 2025 Jan;52(1):210-222.

doi: 10.1007/s10488-024-01381-3. Epub 2024 May 11.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Clinical Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands. KJong@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.
² Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
³ Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, United Kingdom, UK.
⁴ Clinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
⁵ Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
⁶ Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
⁷ Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
⁸ Dimence, Center for mental health care, Deventer, The Netherlands.
⁹ Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
¹⁰ Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
¹¹ Evidence Based Practice Unit, Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, University College London, London, UK.
¹² Pro Persona Research, Renkum, The Netherlands.
¹³ Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.
¹⁴ District General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.
¹⁵ Department of Health and Caring Science, Western Norway University of Applied Science, Førde, Norway.
¹⁶ Department of Behavioral Health, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, MA, USA.
¹⁷ Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
¹⁸ Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Salzburg, Austria.
¹⁹ Institute of Synergetics and Psychotherapy Research, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

PMID: 38733413
PMCID: PMC11703940
DOI: 10.1007/s10488-024-01381-3

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Measurement-based care; Progress feedback; Routine outcome monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: Bram Bovendeerd, Ingrid Carlier, Angelo Compare, Kim de Jong, Jaime Delgadillo, Julian Edbrooke-Childs, Pauline Janse, Wolfgang Lutz, Stig Poulsen, Julian Rubel, Günter Schiepek, Viola Schilling, Maartje van Sonsbeek and Miranda Wolpert have nothing to disclose. Benjamin Aas receives a consulting fee from CCSYS in Germany, the software provider for a feedback system. Michael Barkham was a co-developer of the CORE Outcome Measure (1995-98) which has been used in feedback research. He is a CORE System Trustee but receives no financial benefit from the use of the measure. Vanderbilt University and Susan Douglas receive compensation related to the Peabody Treatment Progress Battery; and Susan Douglas has a financial relationship with MIRAH, and both are Measurement -Based Care (MBC) tools. The author declares a potential conflict of interest. There is a management plan in place at Vanderbilt University to monitor that this potential conflict does not jeopardize the objectivity of Dr. Douglas’ research. Christian Moltu and Sam Nordberg own intellectual property in the Norse feedback system. CORE, Mirah, the Peabody Treatment Progress Battery (PTPB), and Norse Feedback are not mentioned in the manuscript.

References

1. Barber, J., & Resnick, S. G. (2022). Collect, share, Act: A transtheoretical clinical model for doing measurement-based care in mental health treatment. Psychological Services, 20(Suppl 2), 150–157. 10.1037/ser0000629. - PubMed
1. Barkham, M. (2023). Smaller effects matter in the psychological therapies: 25 years on from Wampold et al. (1997). Psychotherapy Research, 33(4), 530–532. 10.1080/10503307.2022.2141589. - PubMed
1. Barkham, M., & Lambert, M. J. (2021). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychological therapies. In M. Barkham, W. Lutz, & L. G. Castonguay (Eds.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change: 50th anniversary edition (pp. 135–189). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
1. Barkham, M., Stiles, W. B., Connell, J., Twigg, E., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Bower, P., King, M., Shapiro, D. A., Hardy, G. E., Greenberg, L., & Angus, L. (2008). Effects of psychological therapies in randomized trials and practice-based studies. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 397–415. 10.1348/014466508X311713. - PubMed
1. Barkham, M., De Jong, K., Delgadillo, J., & Lutz, W. (2023b). Routine outcome monitoring. In C. E. Hill & J. C. Norcross (Eds.), Psychotherapy skills and methods that work. Oxford Academic. 10.1093/oso/9780197611012.003.0015.

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- PubMed Central
- Springer
Medical
- MedlinePlus Health Information

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review

Affiliations

Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Medical