Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39930663›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2025

A mixed-methods study of staff perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of patient-reported routine outcome measures and feedback in alcohol and other drug treatment.

Nina Pocuca, Gabrielle Campbell, Anthony Barnett, Alison K Beck, Rhiannon Ellem, Catherine A Quinn, Peter J Kelly, Briony Larance, Amanda L Baker, Jason P Connor and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The dynamic spectrum of steatotic liver disease: the global perspective.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
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

18 authors.

Nina PocucaNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0264-1680
Gabrielle CampbellNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0851-0748
Anthony BarnettNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2804-4585
Alison K BeckSchool of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9031-2117
Rhiannon EllemNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Catherine A QuinnNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Peter J KellySchool of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0500-1865
Briony LaranceSchool of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3800-7673
Amanda L BakerNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jason P ConnorNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
John MarsdenAddictions Department, School of Academic Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Gary C K ChanNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7569-1948
Luke ConnellyCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Sabrina LenzenCentre for the Business and Economics of Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Michael FarrellNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Robert StirlingNetwork of Alcohol and Other Drugs Agencies, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0596-8286
Suzie HudsonNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Leanne HidesNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4550-8460

Funding

Lives Lived WellNational Health and Medical Research Council Meaningful Outcomes in Substance Use Treatment CRE
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPreliminary evidence supports the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and feedback for enhancing client outcomes in alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment. However, successful implementation remains challenging. This mixed-methods study applied the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework to examine inner setting and staff characteristics that act as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of PROMs in AOD treatment.

methodsTo understand CFIR-informed barriers and facilitators to implement PROMs in AOD treatment, qualitative interviews were conducted with N = 23 AOD counsellors. A separate quantitative survey was conducted with N = 108 AOD counsellors.

resultsFour qualitative themes emerged: (i) PROMs and feedback are valuable to AOD treatment; (ii) counsellor resistance towards PROMs and feedback is a barrier to successful implementation; (iii) competing interests and logistical issues are barriers to the implementation of PROMs and feedback; and (iv) PROMs are a burden to clients that may serve to disengage them from treatment. Survey results indicated a positive association between leadership support (CFIR inner setting construct) and counsellor knowledge and beliefs regarding PROMs and feedback (CFIR staff characteristics construct; β = 0.35, 95% CI [0.13, 0.60]). Findings demonstrated a positive association between available PROMs resources (CFIR inner setting construct) and both knowledge and beliefs regarding PROMs and feedback (β = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]) and self-efficacy to implement PROMs and feedback (CFIR staff characteristics construct; β = 0.18, 95% CI [0.04, 0.32]). DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsFindings point to the critical need to adopt a whole-of-organisation approach to foster buy-in for PROMs and feedback to support successful implementation.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresSubstance-Related DisordersAdultFeedbackFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative Researchdrug and alcohol treatmentimplementationpatient‐reported outcome measures (PROM) and feedbackstaff perspectives

Identifiers

PMID39930663
PMCPMC11886491

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.