Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41024227›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2025

Tracking progress via clinical feedback systems in treatment of substance use disorders: a qualitative study exploring patients' response processes.

Øyvind Grindheim, Heidi Brattland, Christian Moltu, Andrew McAleavey, Kristin Tømmervik, Hege Govasmark, Valentina Iversen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Øyvind GrindheimDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. oyvind.k.grindheim@ntnu.no.
Heidi BrattlandNidelv Mental Health Center, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Christian MoltuDistrict General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.
Andrew McAleaveyDistrict General Hospital of Førde, Førde, Norway.
Kristin TømmervikClinic of Substance Use and Addiction Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Hege GovasmarkClinic of Substance Use and Addiction Medicine, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Valentina IversenDepartment of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades, there has been a shift in many substance use disorder (SUD) treatment settings toward routine outcome monitoring via clinical feedback systems (ROM/CFS). This move toward frequent measurement throughout the treatment course raises new questions about which variables should be measured in the evolving treatment process. In particular, there seems to be a lack of knowledge concerning self-report measures' ability to capture patients' subjective experiences relevant for treatment outcome and process. This qualitative study explored patients' perspectives and reasoning processes to investigate how feedback systems can be adapted to track progress in the treatment of SUDs.

methodsPatients (N = 13) in specialized SUD treatment were interviewed while they responded to items from a feedback system used for routine outcome monitoring in that treatment setting. The approach to data collection was inspired by cognitive interviewing and the analysis was based on a descriptive and interpretative approach.

resultsThe findings provide support for monitoring of several outcome variables, such as behavioral and experiential symptoms, as well as variables relevant to everyday functioning. However, we also found that several aspects related to the subjective experience of being in an ongoing process of change provided important context for the various outcome variables during treatment. The analysis resulted in three themes reflecting this duality and issues that appeared important to consider together when adapting clinical feedback systems to longitudinal monitoring in SUD treatment: 1) The necessity of capturing both preliminary outcomes and the attitude toward the ongoing process of change; 2) The necessity of capturing both the passive and the active role of the patient; and 3) The necessity of capturing both objective and subjective change constructs. Related to each theme we describe the participants' different interpretations of specific items and how different item characteristics facilitated meaningful measurement or not.

conclusionsThe findings expand the knowledge base and strengthen the qualitative foundation for longitudinal monitoring of SUDs and have implications for how feedback measures should be designed. The study also provides knowledge about the process of change and highlights patient experiences that are worth paying attention to when tracking progress in treatment of SUDs.

Indexed as

Substance-Related DisordersAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchTreatment OutcomeCognitive interviewingFeedback systemQualitative researchResponse processesRoutine outcome monitoringSubstance use disorders

Identifiers

PMID41024227
PMCPMC12482074

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.