Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38153585›Full record

SynthesisAdministration and policy in mental health2025

Process and Implementation Elements of Measurement Feedback Systems: A Systematic Review.

Kristian Rognstad, Thomas Engell, Krister Fjermestad, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, John Kjøbli

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kristian RognstadRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway. kristian.rognstad@r-bup.no.ORCID 0000-0002-9929-6897
Thomas EngellRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Krister FjermestadDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Tore Wentzel-LarsenRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
John KjøbliRegional Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NOCenter for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway · NOHøyskolen Kristiania · NONorwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement feedback systems (MFS) can help guide treatment and improve clinical outcomes. Studies of MFS are heterogeneous both in execution and results, and the effects of MFS seem restricted by limited attention to process and implementation elements and by limited adoption by health professionals. The current systematic review mapped the use of process and implementation elements in MFS studies. An overview of therapists' use of and attitudes toward MFS is provided. Three-level meta-analyses were used to test theoretically informed process and implementation elements as moderators of the effects of MFS. Hypotheses and general propositions from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) were used to organize the elements of the studies and were used as moderator variables. Previous studies on MFS interventions have had a limited focus on implementation efforts and process elements that may increase the effects of MFS and their use among therapists. Efforts have sparsely been made to reduce barriers to MFS use, and several studies have reported limited engagement with MFS among therapists. Therapists' attitudes toward MFS, feedback, or standardized measures were heterogeneously reported, making data synthesis challenging. Identified process and implementation elements were not significantly associated with effect sizes in the studies and the results did not support the propositions of CP-FIT. The lack of statistically significant associations may be due to limited reporting of details about process and implementation aspects. More research designed to test hypotheses regarding process and implementation elements is needed to improve the use and effects of MFS. Future studies should aspire to report findings in a manner that allows for an understanding of the implementation process and therapists' adoption of these systems.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFeedbackHumansAdherenceFeedback informed treatmentFidelityImplementationMeasurement feedback systemsPatient reported outcome measures

Identifiers

PMID38153585
PMCPMC11703878
OpenAlexW4390345262

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.