Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38733413›Full record

ReviewAdministration and policy in mental health2025

Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review.

Kim de Jong, Susan Douglas, Miranda Wolpert, Jaime Delgadillo, Benjamin Aas, Bram Bovendeerd, Ingrid Carlier, Angelo Compare, Julian Edbrooke-Childs, Pauline Janse and 9 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Kim de JongClinical Psychology Unit, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, Leiden, 2333 AK, The Netherlands. KJong@fsw.leidenuniv.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-7621-9290
Susan DouglasDepartment of Leadership, Policy and Organizations, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Miranda WolpertDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, United Kingdom, UK.
Jaime DelgadilloClinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Benjamin AasDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bram BovendeerdDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ingrid CarlierDepartment of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Angelo CompareDepartment of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy.
Julian Edbrooke-ChildsEvidence Based Practice Unit, Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, University College London, London, UK.
Pauline JansePro Persona Research, Renkum, The Netherlands.
Wolfgang LutzDepartment of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.
Christian MoltuDistrict General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.
Samuel NordbergDepartment of Behavioral Health, Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, MA, USA.
Stig PoulsenDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Julian A RubelInstitute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Salzburg, Austria.
Günter SchiepekInstitute of Synergetics and Psychotherapy Research, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
Viola N L S SchillingDepartment of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany.
Maartje van SonsbeekPro Persona Research, Renkum, The Netherlands.
Michael BarkhamClinical and Applied Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We face increasing demand for greater access to effective routine mental health services, including telehealth. However, treatment outcomes in routine clinical practice are only about half the size of those reported in controlled trials. Progress feedback, defined as the ongoing monitoring of patients' treatment response with standardized measures, is an evidence-based practice that continues to be under-utilized in routine care. The aim of the current review is to provide a summary of the current evidence base for the use of progress feedback, its mechanisms of action and considerations for successful implementation. We reviewed ten available meta-analyses, which report small to medium overall effect sizes. The results suggest that adding feedback to a wide range of psychological and psychiatric interventions (ranging from primary care to hospitalization and crisis care) tends to enhance the effectiveness of these interventions. The strongest evidence is for patients with common mental health problems compared to those with very severe disorders. Effect sizes for not-on-track cases, a subgroup of cases that are not progressing well, are found to be somewhat stronger, especially when clinical support tools are added to the feedback. Systematic reviews and recent studies suggest potential mechanisms of action for progress feedback include focusing the clinician's attention, altering clinician expectations, providing new information, and enhancing patient-centered communication. Promising approaches to strengthen progress feedback interventions include advanced systems with signaling technology, clinical problem-solving tools, and a broader spectrum of outcome and progress measures. An overview of methodological and implementation challenges is provided, as well as suggestions for addressing these issues in future studies. We conclude that while feedback has modest effects, it is a small and affordable intervention that can potentially improve outcomes in psychological interventions. Further research into mechanisms of action and effective implementation strategies is needed.

Indexed as

FeedbackMental DisordersMental Health ServicesHumansTelemedicineTreatment OutcomeMeasurement-based careProgress feedbackRoutine outcome monitoring

Identifiers

PMID38733413
PMCPMC11703940

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.