Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37917313›Full record

ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2025

A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme.

Susan Douglas, Bram Bovendeerd, Maartje van Sonsbeek, Mya Manns, Xavier Patrick Milling, Ke'Sean Tyler, Nisha Bala, Tim Satterthwaite, Runar Tengel Hovland, Ingunn Amble and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

19 authors.

Susan DouglasDepartment of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA. susan.douglas@vanderbilt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5239-4828
Bram BovendeerdDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0403-4008
Maartje van SonsbeekPro Persona Research, Renkum, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3932-1288
Mya MannsDepartment of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Xavier Patrick MillingDepartment of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Ke'Sean TylerDepartment of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Nisha BalaWestEd, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tim SatterthwaiteDepartment of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College, 230 Appleton Place PMB #414, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Runar Tengel HovlandFaculty of Health and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Førde, Norway.
Ingunn AmbleVilla Sana - Centre for Work Health, Modum Bad, Norway.
Dana Atzil-SlonimDepartment of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Michael BarkhamClinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Kim de JongClinical Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Tony KendrickPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Samuel S NordbergDepartment of Behavioral Health, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, MA, USA.
Wolfgang LutzDepartment of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.
Julian A RubelDepartment of Psychology, Psychotherapy Research Lab, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Tommy SkjulsvikLinköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Christian MoltuDistrict General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-3269-6383

Funding

Dimence Group Dimence GroupFørde Hospital Trust Førde Hospital TrustPeabody College Peabody College
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgress feedback, also known as measurement-based care (MBC), is the routine collection of patient-reported measures to monitor treatment progress and inform clinical decision-making. Although a key ingredient to improving mental health care, sustained use of progress feedback is poor. Integration into everyday workflow is challenging, impacted by a complex interrelated set of factors across patient, clinician, organizational, and health system levels. This study describes the development of a qualitative coding scheme for progress feedback implementation that accounts for the dynamic nature of barriers and facilitators across multiple levels of use in mental health settings. Such a coding scheme may help promote a common language for researchers and implementers to better identify barriers that need to be addressed, as well as facilitators that could be supported in different settings and contexts.

methodsClinical staff, managers, and leaders from two Dutch, three Norwegian, and four mental health organizations in the USA participated in semi-structured interviews on how intra- and extra-organizational characteristics interact to influence the use of progress feedback in clinical practice, supervision, and program improvement. Interviews were conducted in the local language, then translated to English prior to qualitative coding.

resultsA team-based consensus coding approach was used to refine an a priori expert-informed and literature-based qualitative scheme to incorporate new understandings and constructs as they emerged. First, this hermeneutic approach resulted in a multi-level coding scheme with nine superordinate categories and 30 subcategories. Second-order axial coding established contextually sensitive categories for barriers and facilitators.

conclusionsThe primary outcome is an empirically derived multi-level qualitative coding scheme that can be used in progress feedback implementation research and development. It can be applied across contexts and settings, with expectations for ongoing refinement. Suggestions for future research and application in practice settings are provided. Supplementary materials include the coding scheme and a detailed playbook.

Indexed as

LeadershipMental Health ServicesQualitative ResearchClinical CodingFeedbackHumansInterviews as TopicNetherlandsNorwayPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality ImprovementUnited StatesImplementationMeasurement-based careOrganizationalProgress FeedbackQualitative

Identifiers

PMID37917313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.