ArticleJMIR mental health2021
Evaluation of an Online System for Routine Outcome Monitoring: Cross-sectional Survey Study.
Article in JMIR mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement-based care in a Canadian treatment program for first responders, military personnel, and Veterans: A case study.Journal of military, veteran and family health · 2026Article
- Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals Towards the Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring in Psychotherapeutic Inpatient Settings: A Thematic Analysis.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Article
- The feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a feedback-informed group treatment (FIGT) tool for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders.Research in psychotherapy (Milano) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in the treatment of mental health has emerged as a method of improving psychotherapy treatment outcomes. Despite this, very few clinicians regularly use ROM in clinical practice. Online ROM has been suggested as a solution to increase adoption.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to identify the influence of moving ROM online on client completion rates of self-reported outcome measures and to identify implementation and utilization barriers to online ROM by assessing clinicians' views on their experience using the online system over previous paper-based methods.
methodsClient completion rates of self-reported outcome measures were compared pre- and postimplementation of an online system of ROM. In addition, a survey questionnaire was administered to 324 mental health service providers regarding their perception of the benefits with an online system of ROM.
resultsClient completion rates of self-reported measures increased from 15.62% (427/2734) to 53.98% (1267/2347) after they were moved online. Furthermore, 57% (56/98) of service providers found the new system less time-consuming than the previous paper-based ROM, and 64% (63/98) found that it helped monitor clients. However, the perceived value of the system remains in doubt as only 23% (23/98) found it helped them identify clients at risk for treatment failure, and only 18% (18/98) found it strengthened the therapeutic alliance.
conclusionsAlthough the current study suggests mixed results regarding service providers' views on their experience using an online system for ROM, it has identified barriers and challenges that are actionable for improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.