ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2025
To Use or Not to Use: Exploring Therapists' Experiences with Pre-Treatment EMA-Based Personalized Feedback in the TheraNet Project.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining acceptance and commitment therapy in daily life (ACT-DL) for clinical care: Optimization and mixed-methods evaluation of usability and implementation feasibility.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Evaluating visual feedback of experience sampling data for mental health practitioners.Internet interventions · 2025Article
- Commentary on Serre et al. : Demonstrating the next era of addiction science.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2025Article
- Clinical benefits and challenges of ecological momentary assessment in individuals who self-injure and seek mental health treatment.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
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
backgroundUsing idiographic network models in psychotherapy has been a growing area of interest. However, little is known about the perceived clinical utility of network models. The present study aims to explore therapists' experiences with network model-based feedback within the context of the TheraNet Project.
methodsIn total, 18 therapists who had received network-based feedback for at least 1 patient at least 2 months prior were invited to retrospective focus groups. The focus group questions related to how participation in the study influenced the therapeutic relationship, how the networks were used, and what might improve their clinical utility. The transcribed focus groups were analyzed descriptively using qualitative content analysis.
resultsMost therapists mentioned using the feedback to support their existingtheir case concept, while fewer therapists discussed the feedback directly with the patients. Several barriers to using the feedback were discussed, as well as various suggestions for how to make it more clinically useful. Many therapists reported skepticism with regards to research in the outpatient training center in general, though they were also all pleasantly surprised by being involved, having their opinions heard, and showing a readiness to adapt research to their needs/abilities.
conclusionsThis study highlights the gap between researchers' and therapists' perceptions about what useful feedback should look like. The TheraNet therapists' interest in adapting the feedback and building more informative feedback systems signals a general openness to the implementation of clinically relevant research. We provide suggestions for future implementations of network-based feedback systems in the outpatient clinical training center setting.
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.