ArticleResearch square2024
Putting measurement-based care into action: A mixed methods study of the benefits of integrating routine client feedback in coordinated specialty care programs for early psychosis.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Measurement-based care (MBC) is an effective tool in the delivery of evidence-based practices (EBPs). MBC utilizes feedback loops to share information and drive changes throughout a learning healthcare system. Few studies have demonstrated this practice in team-based care for people with early psychosis. This paper describes the development of a personalized feedback report derived from routine assessments that is shared with clients and clinicians as part of a MBC process. Methods: We used a quasi pre-post comparison design with mixed methods to evaluate the implementation of a personalized feedback report at 5 early psychosis coordinated specialty care programs (CSC). We compared clients enrolled in CSC who did and did not receive a feedback report over the first 6 months of treatment. The sample included 204 clients: 146 who did not receive the feedback report and were enrolled over 2 years, and 58 who received the feedback report. A subset of 67 clients completed measures at both intake and 6-month follow-up, including 42 who received the report and 25 who did not. We compared the two groups with regard to self-reported symptoms, likelihood of completing treatment, and perception of shared decision making. We conducted qualitative interviews with 5 clients and 5 clinicians to identify the benefits and challenges associated with the personalized feedback report. Results: People who received a personalized feedback report reported significant improvements in shared decision-making and had greater improvements over time in their intent to attend future treatment sessions. They engaged in more sessions for Supported Employment and Education (SEE), case management, and peer support, and fewer medication visits over the first 6 months of treatment. Both groups showed significant improvement in symptoms and functioning. Results from the qualitative analysis indicated that the experience of receiving the reports was valuable and validating for both patients and clinicians. Conclusions: A personalized feedback report was integrated into standard of care for early psychosis programs. This process may improve shared decision-making, strengthen the likelihood to stay in treatment, and increase engagement in psychosocial interventions. We posit that this process facilitates strengths-focused discussions, enhances intrinsic motivation, and strengthens the therapeutic alliance.
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.