ArticleBMC psychology2025
Tracking progress via clinical feedback systems in treatment of substance use disorders: a qualitative study exploring patients' response processes.
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.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.