Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35428931›Full record

ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2022

Patients' and Psychologists' Preferences for Feedback Reports on Expected Mental Health Treatment Outcomes: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Loes Hilhorst, Jip van der Stappen, Joran Lokkerbol, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Anna H Risseeuw, Bea G Tiemens

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Loes HilhorstBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. loes.hilhorst@ru.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-3214-0302
Jip van der StappenBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Joran LokkerbolCentre of Economic Evaluation, Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health), Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9949-5442
Mickaël HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI Care & Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4274-9258
Anna H RisseeuwMIND Ypsilon, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Bea G TiemensBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1231-0984
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLMaastricht University · NLTrimbos Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on routine outcome monitoring (ROM) to provide feedback on patient progress during mental health treatment, with some systems also predicting the expected treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to elicit patients' and psychologists' preferences regarding how ROM system-generated feedback reports should display predicted treatment outcomes. In a discrete-choice experiment, participants were asked 12-13 times to choose between two ways of displaying an expected treatment outcome. The choices varied in four different attributes: representation, outcome, predictors, and advice. A conditional logistic regression was used to estimate participants' preferences. A total of 104 participants (68 patients and 36 psychologists) completed the questionnaire. Participants preferred feedback reports on expected treatment outcome that included: (a) both text and images, (b) a continuous outcome or an outcome that is expressed in terms of a probability, (c) specific predictors, and (d) specific advice. For both patients and psychologists, specific predictors appeared to be most important, specific advice was second most important, a continuous outcome or a probability was third most important, and feedback that includes both text and images was fourth in importance. The ranking in importance of both the attributes and the attribute levels was identical for patients and psychologists. This suggests that, as long as the report is understandable to the patient, psychologists and patients can use the same ROM feedback report, eliminating the need for ROM administrators to develop different versions.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceFeedbackHumansMental HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesChoiceDiscrete choice experimentExpected treatment outcomePatient preferencePsychologist preferenceRoutine outcome monitoring

Identifiers

PMID35428931
PMCPMC9393149
OpenAlexW4223902073

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.