系统客户反馈:一项自然主义的初步研究

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.anyes.2019.04.005
Alberto Gimeno-Peón , Javier Prado-Abril , Felix Inchausti , Anxo Barrio-Nespereira , María Teresa Álvarez-Casariego , Barry L. Duncan
{"title":"系统客户反馈:一项自然主义的初步研究","authors":"Alberto Gimeno-Peón ,&nbsp;Javier Prado-Abril ,&nbsp;Felix Inchausti ,&nbsp;Anxo Barrio-Nespereira ,&nbsp;María Teresa Álvarez-Casariego ,&nbsp;Barry L. Duncan","doi":"10.1016/j.anyes.2019.04.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Routine outcome monitoring or systematic client feedback (SCF) continues to garner empirical support. The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) is one application of SCF with significant research support but no studies have been conducted in Spain. This investigation describes the effects of PCOMS in routine practice via a comparison to published PCOMS studies.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>In a retrospective observational study, PCOMS was implemented with 42 clients treated in routine psychotherapy. Outcomes were measured by the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and descriptively compared to PCOMS studies included in a meta-analysis and a PCOMS benchmarking study regarding reliable and/or clinically significant change, no change, and deterioration.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The current study achieved similar rates of reliable and clinically significant change (73.8%) to the benchmarking study (65.6%) and the RCTs (67.5%). Regarding no change rates, the current study (23.8%) mirrored results of the RCTs (25.6%) and was better than the benchmarking study (35.4%). The current study incurred a low 2.4% deterioration rate compared to a 10.7% and 7.0% rate of the benchmarking study and RCTs, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While not without flaws, this pilot study offers some evidence that the improved outcomes associated with PCOMS may also occur in psychotherapy settings in Spain.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45616,"journal":{"name":"Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress","volume":"25 2","pages":"Pages 132-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic Client Feedback: A naturalistic pilot study\",\"authors\":\"Alberto Gimeno-Peón ,&nbsp;Javier Prado-Abril ,&nbsp;Felix Inchausti ,&nbsp;Anxo Barrio-Nespereira ,&nbsp;María Teresa Álvarez-Casariego ,&nbsp;Barry L. Duncan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.anyes.2019.04.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Routine outcome monitoring or systematic client feedback (SCF) continues to garner empirical support. The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) is one application of SCF with significant research support but no studies have been conducted in Spain. This investigation describes the effects of PCOMS in routine practice via a comparison to published PCOMS studies.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>In a retrospective observational study, PCOMS was implemented with 42 clients treated in routine psychotherapy. Outcomes were measured by the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and descriptively compared to PCOMS studies included in a meta-analysis and a PCOMS benchmarking study regarding reliable and/or clinically significant change, no change, and deterioration.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The current study achieved similar rates of reliable and clinically significant change (73.8%) to the benchmarking study (65.6%) and the RCTs (67.5%). Regarding no change rates, the current study (23.8%) mirrored results of the RCTs (25.6%) and was better than the benchmarking study (35.4%). The current study incurred a low 2.4% deterioration rate compared to a 10.7% and 7.0% rate of the benchmarking study and RCTs, respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While not without flaws, this pilot study offers some evidence that the improved outcomes associated with PCOMS may also occur in psychotherapy settings in Spain.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 132-137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1134793719300120\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1134793719300120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

常规结果监测或系统客户反馈(SCF)继续获得经验支持。变革伙伴结果管理系统(PCOMS)是SCF的一个应用,得到了大量的研究支持,但尚未在西班牙进行研究。本研究通过与已发表的PCOMS研究的比较,描述了PCOMS在常规实践中的作用。材料与方法在一项回顾性观察性研究中,对42例接受常规心理治疗的患者实施PCOMS。通过结果评定量表(ORS)测量结果,并与meta分析中的PCOMS研究和PCOMS基准研究中关于可靠和/或临床显著变化、无变化和恶化的研究进行描述性比较。结果本研究获得了与基准研究(65.6%)和随机对照试验(67.5%)相似的可靠和临床显著改变率(73.8%)。在无变化率方面,本研究(23.8%)反映了随机对照试验(25.6%)的结果,优于基准研究(35.4%)。与基准研究和随机对照试验的10.7%和7.0%的恶化率相比,当前研究的恶化率为2.4%。结论:虽然不是没有缺陷,但这项初步研究提供了一些证据,表明与PCOMS相关的改善结果也可能出现在西班牙的心理治疗环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Systematic Client Feedback: A naturalistic pilot study

Introduction

Routine outcome monitoring or systematic client feedback (SCF) continues to garner empirical support. The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) is one application of SCF with significant research support but no studies have been conducted in Spain. This investigation describes the effects of PCOMS in routine practice via a comparison to published PCOMS studies.

Material and methods

In a retrospective observational study, PCOMS was implemented with 42 clients treated in routine psychotherapy. Outcomes were measured by the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and descriptively compared to PCOMS studies included in a meta-analysis and a PCOMS benchmarking study regarding reliable and/or clinically significant change, no change, and deterioration.

Results

The current study achieved similar rates of reliable and clinically significant change (73.8%) to the benchmarking study (65.6%) and the RCTs (67.5%). Regarding no change rates, the current study (23.8%) mirrored results of the RCTs (25.6%) and was better than the benchmarking study (35.4%). The current study incurred a low 2.4% deterioration rate compared to a 10.7% and 7.0% rate of the benchmarking study and RCTs, respectively.

Conclusions

While not without flaws, this pilot study offers some evidence that the improved outcomes associated with PCOMS may also occur in psychotherapy settings in Spain.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress
Ansiedad y Estres-Anxiety and Stress PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Factor structure and reliability of the Lasher and Faulkender’s Anxiety about Aging Scale in Mexican adults Ansiedad precompetitiva y habilidades psicológicas relacionadas con el rendimiento deportivo How to evaluate coping strategies for stressful situations? Validation of the CSI in a Spanish university population Propiedades psicométricas del Cuestionario de Ansiedad Social para Adultos (CASO) en población Dominicana Diseño y validación de un cuestionario para la detección de Abusos Sexuales Infantiles en personas adultas con adicción
×
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