Sapyta Jeffrey, Riemer Manuel, Bickman Leonard
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212, USA.
J Clin Psychol. 2005 Feb;61(2):145-53. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20107.
Despite the dearth of consistent evidence for conventional feedback mechanisms in clinical practice, the primary methods of feedback for clinicians remain supervision and clinical experience. A new research approach, known as patient-focused research, provides clinicians with direct feedback regarding a client's health status and relative progress in therapy. This article briefly reviews the relation of different types of feedback (i.e., supervision, clinical experience, feedback on client health status) to clinical outcome. In contrast to the mixed results for clinical experience and supervision, providing client health status feedback to clinicians significantly improves outcome, especially for clients who are not doing well in therapy. We conclude with a description of a model that provides insight into ways that feedback interventions can work best for professionals. Characteristics of the clinician, the feedback format, and the dissonance between feedback and clinician goals all relate to the ways that feedback is interpreted and utilized.
尽管在临床实践中缺乏关于传统反馈机制的一致证据,但临床医生的主要反馈方式仍然是监督和临床经验。一种被称为以患者为中心的研究的新研究方法,为临床医生提供了关于患者健康状况和治疗相对进展的直接反馈。本文简要回顾了不同类型的反馈(即监督、临床经验、关于患者健康状况的反馈)与临床结果之间的关系。与临床经验和监督的混合结果形成对比的是,向临床医生提供患者健康状况反馈显著改善了治疗结果,尤其是对于那些在治疗中进展不佳的患者。我们最后描述了一个模型,该模型为反馈干预如何能最有效地作用于专业人员提供了见解。临床医生的特征、反馈形式以及反馈与临床医生目标之间的不一致都与反馈的解释和利用方式有关。