Psychotherapists' Experience with In-Session Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring: A Qualitative Meta-analysis.

Klára Jonášová, Michal Čevelíček, Petr Doležal, Tomáš Řiháček
{"title":"Psychotherapists' Experience with In-Session Use of Routine Outcome Monitoring: A Qualitative Meta-analysis.","authors":"Klára Jonášová, Michal Čevelíček, Petr Doležal, Tomáš Řiháček","doi":"10.1007/s10488-024-01348-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has become an increasingly utilized tool in therapeutic practice that has the potential to improve therapy outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of existing qualitative studies investigating how clinicians use ROM in their work with clients. A systematic search of qualitative studies on clinicians' experience with the use of ROM in mental health services was conducted via PsycInfo, PsycArticles, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Qualitative meta-analysis was used to synthesize the finding of the primary studies. Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The analysis resulted in 21 meta-categories organized into six clusters, namely (1) obtaining clinically relevant information, (2) adapting treatment, (3) facilitating communication, (4) enhancing the therapeutic relationship, (5) facilitating change in clients, and (6) personalized usage of ROM. The meta-analysis revealed that clinicians utilized ROM in diverse ways, including both informational and communicational functions. From the clinicians' perspective, ROM was an element that, on the one hand, introduced additional structure and standardization in treatment and, on the other hand, allowed for greater flexibility and tailoring of treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-024-01348-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) has become an increasingly utilized tool in therapeutic practice that has the potential to improve therapy outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of existing qualitative studies investigating how clinicians use ROM in their work with clients. A systematic search of qualitative studies on clinicians' experience with the use of ROM in mental health services was conducted via PsycInfo, PsycArticles, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Qualitative meta-analysis was used to synthesize the finding of the primary studies. Forty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. The analysis resulted in 21 meta-categories organized into six clusters, namely (1) obtaining clinically relevant information, (2) adapting treatment, (3) facilitating communication, (4) enhancing the therapeutic relationship, (5) facilitating change in clients, and (6) personalized usage of ROM. The meta-analysis revealed that clinicians utilized ROM in diverse ways, including both informational and communicational functions. From the clinicians' perspective, ROM was an element that, on the one hand, introduced additional structure and standardization in treatment and, on the other hand, allowed for greater flexibility and tailoring of treatment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理治疗师在治疗过程中使用常规结果监测的经验:定性 Meta 分析。
常规结果监测(ROM)已成为治疗实践中越来越常用的一种工具,具有改善治疗结果的潜力。本研究旨在综合现有的定性研究结果,调查临床医生在与客户的合作中如何使用 ROM。我们通过 PsycInfo、PsycArticles、Medline、Web of Science 和 Scopus 数据库对临床医生在心理健康服务中使用 ROM 的经验进行了定性研究的系统检索。定性荟萃分析用于综合主要研究的结果。有 47 项研究符合纳入标准。分析得出 21 个元类别,分为六组,即(1)获取临床相关信息;(2)调整治疗方法;(3)促进沟通;(4)加强治疗关系;(5)促进客户改变;(6)个性化使用 ROM。荟萃分析表明,临床医生使用 ROM 的方式多种多样,包括信息功能和沟通功能。从临床医生的角度来看,ROM 一方面为治疗引入了额外的结构和标准化,另一方面也为治疗提供了更大的灵活性和针对性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
期刊最新文献
Strategic Treatment and Assessment for Youth (STAY): A Theoretically-Driven, Culturally-Tailored MBC Approach. A Model for Understanding Lived Expertise to Support Effective Recruitment of Peer Roles. Life After EBPs: Characterizing Subsequent Engagement in Evidence-Based Psychotherapy After Completion of an Initial Trauma-Focused EBP in a National Sample of VA Patients. Should We Use Clinician Self-Report to Tailor Implementation Strategies? Predicting Use of Youth CBT with Clinician Self-Report Versus Direct Observation. Factors Influencing the Engagement with Electronic Mental Health Technologies: A Systematic Review of Reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1