ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2025
Routine Outcome Monitoring from Psychotherapists' Perspectives: A Framework Analysis Study of Expected Benefits and Difficulties.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Attitudes of Mental Health Professionals Towards the Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring in Psychotherapeutic Inpatient Settings: A Thematic Analysis.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Article
- The time has come to implement routine outcome monitoring in mental health services across Latin America.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring in Clinical Supervision: A Scoping Review of Empirical Evidence.Clinical psychology & psychotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Psychotherapists' attitudes and expectations towards routine outcome monitoring can impact the likelihood of its fruitful implementation. While existing studies have predominantly focused on Europe and North America, research in Latin America remains limited. The aim of this study is to explore therapists' expected benefits and difficulties prior to implementing a routine outcome monitoring system in a university psychotherapy service in Ecuador. An exploratory and descriptive cross-sectional qualitative study was carried out with 20 participants aged 21 to 47. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore participants' knowledge about routine outcome monitoring, their expectations of the difficulties, benefits, usability and risks of using a monitoring system, as well as their expectations about their role in the process. The data analysis adhered to the framework analysis methodology, leading to the identification of six overarching themes, 36 specific themes and 82 subthemes. The interviews highlighted a spectrum of positive and negative expectations at several levels: institutional/general, therapeutic process, therapists, and clients. Perceived benefits encompassed various aspects, including the availability of supplementary information, continuous adaptation of the therapeutic process, facilitation of organization and treatment planning, opportunities for professional development, and fostering patient trust and empowerment. On the other hand, anticipated difficulties comprised concerns such as discomfort among therapists and clients, increased workload, system usage and technical difficulties, and the risk of excessive quantification. Overall, participants expressed more anticipated benefits than difficulties. We present recommendations that can support and optimize the current local implementation efforts of routine outcome monitoring, both within this service and in other settings. These recommendations consider ways to meet positive expectations and address or mitigate negative ones.
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.