Trent Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK.
Trent Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, College of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln, UK.
Psychol Psychother. 2018 Jun;91(2):186-215. doi: 10.1111/papt.12155. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
Team formulation is promoted by professional practice guidelines for clinical psychologists. However, it is unclear whether team formulation is understood/implemented in consistent ways - or whether there is outcome evidence to support the promotion of this practice. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize how team formulation practice is defined and implemented by practitioner psychologists and (2) analyse the range of team formulation outcomes in the peer-reviewed literature.
Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched in June 2016. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria and were quality assessed. Extracted data were synthesized using content analysis.
Descriptions of team formulation revealed three main forms of instantiation: (1) a structured, consultation approach; (2) semi-structured, reflective practice meetings; and (3) unstructured/informal sharing of ideas through routine interactions. Outcome evidence linked team formulation to a range of outcomes for staff teams and service users, including some negative outcomes. Quality appraisal identified significant issues with evaluation methods; such that, overall, outcomes were not well-supported.
There is weak evidence to support the claimed beneficial outcomes of team formulation in practice. There is a need for greater specification and standardization of 'team formulation' practices, to enable a clearer understanding of any relationships with outcomes and implications for best-practice implementations.
Under the umbrella term of 'team formulation', three types of practice are reported: (1) highly structured consultation; (2) reflective practice meetings; and (3) informal sharing of ideas. Outcomes linked to team formulation, including some negative outcomes, were not well evidenced. Research using robust study designs is required to investigate the process and outcomes of team formulation practice.
团队制定由临床心理学家的专业实践指南所推动。然而，目前尚不清楚团队制定是否以一致的方式被理解/实施——或者是否有结果证据支持这种实践的推广。本系统评价旨在：（1）综合从业者心理学家对团队制定实践的定义和实施方式；（2）分析同行评议文献中团队制定结果的范围。
2016 年 6 月，对七个电子文献数据库进行了搜索。符合纳入标准的 11 篇文章进行了质量评估。使用内容分析对提取的数据进行了综合。
对团队制定的描述揭示了三种主要的实施形式：（1）结构化、咨询方法；（2）半结构化、反思性实践会议；以及（3）通过日常互动进行的非结构化/非正式的想法共享。结果证据将团队制定与员工团队和服务用户的一系列结果联系起来，包括一些负面结果。质量评估确定了评估方法存在重大问题；因此，总体而言，结果没有得到很好的支持。
有微弱的证据支持实践中团队制定的所谓有益结果。需要进一步明确和规范“团队制定”实践，以便更清楚地了解与结果的关系及其对最佳实践实施的影响。
在“团队制定”这一总括术语下，报告了三种实践类型：（1）高度结构化的咨询；（2）反思性实践会议；以及（3）非正式的想法共享。与团队制定相关的结果，包括一些负面结果，没有得到很好的证据支持。需要使用稳健的研究设计来研究团队制定实践的过程和结果。
