Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34130724›Full record

ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2021

What do clinicians want? Understanding frontline addiction treatment clinicians' preferences and priorities to improve the design of measurement-based care technology.

Justin S Tauscher, Eliza B Cohn, Tascha R Johnson, Kaylie D Diteman, Richard K Ries, David C Atkins, Kevin A Hallgren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Beyond Detection: Towards Actionable Sensing Research in Clinical Mental Healthcare.Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubiquitous technologies · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Using the experience sampling method to support clinical practice: An illustration with problematic cannabis use.Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Justin S TauscherBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Eliza B CohnBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Tascha R JohnsonBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Kaylie D DitemanBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Richard K RiesBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
David C AtkinsBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Kevin A HallgrenBehavioral Research in Technology and Engineering (BRiTE) Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356560, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. khallgre@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8386-3984

Funding

Developing a tool to assess, provide feedback, and facilitate discussion of mechanisms of change in frontline addiction treatmentK01AA024796 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HALLGREN, KEVIN A. · 2016 to 2020
$870k
Using Technology to Scale Up the Evaluation of Motivational InterviewingK02AA023814 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ATKINS, DAVID CHARLES · 2015 to 2019
$690k
NIAAA NIH HHS K01 AA024796NIAAA NIH HHS K01AA024796NIAAA NIH HHS K02 AA023814NIAAA NIH HHS K02AA023814
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMeasurement-based care (MBC) is the practice of routinely administering standardized measures to support clinical decision-making and monitor treatment progress. Despite evidence of its effectiveness, MBC is rarely adopted in routine substance use disorder (SUD) treatment settings and little is known about the factors that may improve its adoptability in these settings. The current study gathered qualitative data from SUD treatment clinicians about their perceptions of MBC, the clinical outcomes they would most like to monitor in MBC, and suggestions for the design and implementation of MBC systems in their settings.

methodsFifteen clinicians from one publicly-funded and two privately-funded outpatient SUD treatment clinics participated in one-on-one research interviews. Interviews focused on clinicians' perceived benefits, drawbacks, and ideas related to implementing MBC technology into their clinical workflows. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded to allow for thematic analysis using a mixed deductive and inductive approach. Clinicians also completed a card sorting task to rate the perceived helpfulness of routinely measuring and monitoring different treatment outcomes.

resultsClinicians reported several potential benefits of MBC, including improved patient-provider communication, client empowerment, and improved communication between clinicians. Clinicians also expressed potential drawbacks, including concerns about subjectivity in patient self-reports, limits to personalization, increased time burdens, and needing to learn to use new technologies. Clinicians generated several ideas and preferences aimed at minimizing burden of MBC, illustrating clinical changes over time, improving ease of use, and improving personalization. Numerous patient outcomes were identified as "very helpful" to track, including coping skills, social support, and motivation for change.

conclusionsMBC may be a beneficial tool for improving clinical care in SUD treatment settings. MBC tools may be particularly adoptable if they are compatible with existing workflows, help illustrate gradual and nonlinear progress in SUD treatment, measure outcomes perceived as clinically useful, accommodate multiple use cases and stakeholder groups, and are framed as an additional source of information meant to augment, rather than replace, existing practices and information sources.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesCommunicationHumansTechnologyAddiction treatmentMeasurement-based careMechanisms of behavior changeProgress monitoringRoutine outcome monitoringSubstance use disorder treatmentUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID34130724
PMCPMC8205211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.