Mapping the growth of the CORE system tools in psychotherapy research from 1998 to 2021: Learning from historical evidence.

IF 2.6 1区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychotherapy Research Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1080/10503307.2025.2457389
Clara Paz, Alejandro Unda-López, Jorge Valdiviezo-Oña, Juan Fernando Chávez, Jonathan Elias Herrera Criollo, Lizbeth Toscano-Molina, Chris Evans
{"title":"Mapping the growth of the CORE system tools in psychotherapy research from 1998 to 2021: Learning from historical evidence.","authors":"Clara Paz, Alejandro Unda-López, Jorge Valdiviezo-Oña, Juan Fernando Chávez, Jonathan Elias Herrera Criollo, Lizbeth Toscano-Molina, Chris Evans","doi":"10.1080/10503307.2025.2457389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) system was launched in 1998 intended to support the development of practice-based evidence and to reduce the research/practice gap. Since then, CORE instruments have been widely used.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To map the utilization of the CORE system as reflected in peer-reviewed literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We followed the guidelines for conducting a scoping review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 721 papers from 1998 to 2021 citing the CORE system, with 636 of them referencing its use in clinical settings. There has been a marked increase in use of the system over that period. All CORE instruments were used at least once, spanning 39 countries and 24 languages. Papers had a broad spectrum of objectives and populations across diagnoses and settings, aligning with the authors' planned versatility for the CORE system.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the light of the findings, we present a guide to enhance the reporting of work utilizing the CORE system. This could be applied to all practice-based evidence data collection, CORE or otherwise.</p>","PeriodicalId":48159,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy Research","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2025.2457389","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) system was launched in 1998 intended to support the development of practice-based evidence and to reduce the research/practice gap. Since then, CORE instruments have been widely used.

Aims: To map the utilization of the CORE system as reflected in peer-reviewed literature.

Methods: We followed the guidelines for conducting a scoping review.

Results: We identified 721 papers from 1998 to 2021 citing the CORE system, with 636 of them referencing its use in clinical settings. There has been a marked increase in use of the system over that period. All CORE instruments were used at least once, spanning 39 countries and 24 languages. Papers had a broad spectrum of objectives and populations across diagnoses and settings, aligning with the authors' planned versatility for the CORE system.

Conclusions: In the light of the findings, we present a guide to enhance the reporting of work utilizing the CORE system. This could be applied to all practice-based evidence data collection, CORE or otherwise.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychotherapy Research
Psychotherapy Research PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
10.30%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy Research seeks to enhance the development, scientific quality, and social relevance of psychotherapy research and to foster the use of research findings in practice, education, and policy formulation. The Journal publishes reports of original research on all aspects of psychotherapy, including its outcomes, its processes, education of practitioners, and delivery of services. It also publishes methodological, theoretical, and review articles of direct relevance to psychotherapy research. The Journal is addressed to an international, interdisciplinary audience and welcomes submissions dealing with diverse theoretical orientations, treatment modalities.
期刊最新文献
Practices of personalized treatment selection among German psychotherapists: A preregistered mixed methods study. Associations between interpersonal synchrony and clients' perception of session quality are moderated by depression severity. A mixed-methods evaluation of long-term outcomes after trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for children subjected to family violence. Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy for long-term posttraumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders in victims of terrorism: A randomized clinical trial. A theory-building case study of resolving epistemic mistrust and developing epistemic trust in psychotherapy with depressed adolescents.
×
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