ArticleImplementation science communications2022
Measurement feedback system implementation in public youth mental health treatment services: a mixed methods analysis.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychotherapists' Experience with In-Session Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring: A Qualitative Meta-analysis.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Implementation of Measurement-Based Care in Mental Health Service Settings for Youth: A Systematic Review.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2024Pooled it
- Consultation Content and Techniques for measurement-Based Care Implementation in Youth Community Mental Health Settings.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Trial
- Dose-Response Effects of MittEcho, a Measurement Feedback System, in an Indicated Mental Health Intervention for Children in Municipal and School Services in Norway.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Trial
- Personalized and collaborative use of digital measurement-based care tools enhances engagement among young adults: a mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Article
- Provider Use of, Attitudes Towards, and Self-efficacy with Key Measurement-based Care Practices in Youth Mental Health Treatment: A Multi-site Examination.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Article
- A Structural Model of Organization and Clinician Factors Associated with Standardized Measure Use in a National Survey of Youth Mental Health Providers.Administration and policy in mental health · 2023Article
- Measurement-based care implementation by K-12 public school clinicians: A mixed-methods proof of concept study.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrior studies indicate the effectiveness of measurement-based care (MBC), an evidence-based practice, in improving and accelerating positive outcomes for youth receiving behavioral health services. MBC is the routine collection and use of client-reported progress measures to inform shared decision-making and collaborative treatment adjustments and is a relatively feasible and scalable clinical practice, particularly well-suited for under-resourced community mental health settings. However, uptake of MBC remains low, so information on determinants related to MBC practice patterns is needed.
methodsQuantitative and qualitative data from N = 80 clinicians who implemented MBC using a measurement feedback system (MFS) were merged to understand and describe determinants of practice over three study phases. Quantitative, latent class analysis identified clinician groups based on participants' ratings of MFS acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility and describes similarities/differences between classes in clinician-level characteristics (e.g., age; perceptions of implementation climate; reported MFS use; phase I). Qualitative analyses of clinicians' responses to open-ended questions about their MFS use and feedback about the MFS and implementation supports were conducted separately to understand multi-level barriers and facilitators to MFS implementation (phase II). Mixing occurred during interpretation, examining clinician experiences and opinions across groups to understand the needs of different classes of clinicians, describe class differences, and inform selection of implementation strategies in future research (phase III).
resultsWe identified two classes of clinicians: "Higher MFS" and "Lower MFS," and found similarities and differences in MFS use across groups. Compared to Lower MFS participants, clinicians in the Higher MFS group reported facilitators at a higher rate. Four determinants of practice were associated with the uptake of MBC and MFS in youth-serving community mental health settings for all clinicians: clarity, appropriateness, and feasibility of the MFS and its measures; clinician knowledge and skills; client preferences and behaviors; and incentives and resources (e.g., time; continuing educational support). Findings also highlighted the need for individual-level implementation strategies to target clinician needs, skills, and perceptions for future MBC and MFS implementation efforts.
conclusionThis study has implications for the adoption of evidence-based practices, such as MBC, in the context of community-based mental health services for youth.
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.