Rognstad Kristian, Engell Thomas, Fjermestad Krister, Wentzel-Larsen Tore, Kjøbli John
Regional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2025 Jan;52(1):74-87. doi: 10.1007/s10488-023-01325-3. Epub 2023 Dec 28.
Measurement feedback systems (MFS) can help guide treatment and improve clinical outcomes. Studies of MFS are heterogeneous both in execution and results, and the effects of MFS seem restricted by limited attention to process and implementation elements and by limited adoption by health professionals. The current systematic review mapped the use of process and implementation elements in MFS studies. An overview of therapists' use of and attitudes toward MFS is provided. Three-level meta-analyses were used to test theoretically informed process and implementation elements as moderators of the effects of MFS. Hypotheses and general propositions from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) were used to organize the elements of the studies and were used as moderator variables. Previous studies on MFS interventions have had a limited focus on implementation efforts and process elements that may increase the effects of MFS and their use among therapists. Efforts have sparsely been made to reduce barriers to MFS use, and several studies have reported limited engagement with MFS among therapists. Therapists' attitudes toward MFS, feedback, or standardized measures were heterogeneously reported, making data synthesis challenging. Identified process and implementation elements were not significantly associated with effect sizes in the studies and the results did not support the propositions of CP-FIT. The lack of statistically significant associations may be due to limited reporting of details about process and implementation aspects. More research designed to test hypotheses regarding process and implementation elements is needed to improve the use and effects of MFS. Future studies should aspire to report findings in a manner that allows for an understanding of the implementation process and therapists' adoption of these systems.
测量反馈系统(MFS)有助于指导治疗并改善临床结果。MFS的研究在执行和结果方面存在异质性,而且MFS的效果似乎受到对过程和实施要素关注有限以及卫生专业人员采用率低的限制。当前的系统评价梳理了MFS研究中过程和实施要素的使用情况。提供了治疗师对MFS的使用情况及态度的概述。采用三级荟萃分析来检验理论上已知的过程和实施要素作为MFS效果的调节因素。来自临床绩效反馈干预理论(CP - FIT)的假设和一般命题被用于组织研究要素,并用作调节变量。以往关于MFS干预的研究对实施努力和可能增加MFS效果及其在治疗师中使用的过程要素关注有限。在减少MFS使用障碍方面所做的努力很少,并且有几项研究报告治疗师对MFS的参与度有限。关于治疗师对MFS、反馈或标准化测量的态度,报告结果存在异质性,这使得数据合成具有挑战性。在研究中,已确定的过程和实施要素与效应大小没有显著关联,结果也不支持CP - FIT的命题。缺乏统计学上的显著关联可能是由于对过程和实施方面细节的报告有限。需要更多旨在检验关于过程和实施要素假设的研究,以改善MFS的使用和效果。未来的研究应致力于以一种能够让人理解实施过程以及治疗师对这些系统采用情况的方式报告研究结果。