ArticleBMC health services research2024
Patient perspectives on systematic client feedback in Dutch outpatient mental healthcare, a qualitative case reports study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe added value of systematic client feedback (SCF) to psychotherapy can be affected by patient perspectives, both in a positive and negative way, and is influenced by cultural factors as well. Current study explores patients' perspectives on use and optimization of SCF in Dutch outpatient mental healthcare. Primary aim of present study is to generate implications for daily practice and optimize SCF implementation, particularly for the Netherlands.
methodFour patients suffering from mild to moderate psychological disorders were in-depth interviewed on their perspective on the use of SCF, when the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS, high frequent), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45, low frequent) and the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF, low frequent) was added to treatment as usual in two Dutch outpatient mental healthcare centers offering brief psychological treatment. Interview topics were (a) SCF in general; (b) type of questionnaires; (c) frequency of use; (d) effect of SCF on therapy; and (e) perceived added value of SCF. A SCF expert team analyzed the data through reflexive Thematic Analysis.
resultsWe identified three themes, all of which have two sub-themes: (a) Requirements to use SCF, with sub-themes (a1) Balance between effort to complete SCF and perceived validity, and (a2) Balance between used frequency and perceived validity; (b) Modifiers for test-taking attitude, with subthemes (b1) SCF as an embedded part of therapy, and (b2) Quality of Therapist-Client alignment; and (c) Effects on therapeutic process, with subthemes (c1) Focus on task and goals, and shared responsibility, and (c2) Effects on outcome and satisfaction.
conclusionsAdding SCF to therapy can be perceived as helpful by patients in psychotherapy if two conditions are met: (1) Creating a right balance between effort and yield for SCF to be used at all; and (2) embedding SCF as an integral part of therapy, through therapist-client alignment. Throughout the progression of therapy, it might be useful to perceive SCF and therapy as communicating vessels; according to patients it is not only necessary to adjust therapy based on SCF, but also to adjust SCF based on the course of therapy.
trial registrationThis trial was registered on September 30, 2015 in the Dutch Trial Register NTR5466. The Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Twente (Enschede) approved this study (registration number: K15-11, METC Twente).
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.