OBJECTIVES: Although psychosomatic in-patient treatment is effective, 5-10% of the patients deteriorate. Providing patient progress feedback and clinical support tools to therapists improves the outcome for patients at risk of deterioration in counseling, outpatient psychotherapy, and substance abuse treatment. This study investigated the effects of feedback on psychosomatically treated in-patients at risk of treatment failure. METHODS: At intake, all patients of two psychosomatic clinics were randomized either into the experimental group or the treatment-as-usual control group. Both groups were tracked weekly with the "Outcome Questionnaire" (OQ-45) measuring patient progress and with the clinical support tool "Assessment of Signal Cases" (ASC). Therapists received feedback from both instruments for all their experimental group patients. "Patients at risk" were defined as patients who deviated from expected recovery curves by at least one standard deviation. Of 252 patients, 43 patients were at risk: 23 belonged to the experimental group, 20 to the control group. The feedback effect was analyzed using a level-2-model for discontinuous change, effect size (d), reliable change index (RCI), and odds ratio for reliable deterioration. RESULTS: For patients at risk, the experimental group showed an improved outcome on the OQ-45 total scale compared to the control group (p<0.05, d=0.54). By providing feedback, the rate of reliably deteriorated patients at risk was reduced from 25.0% (control group) to 8.7% (experimental group) - odds ratio=0.29. All reliably improved patients at risk belonged to the experimental group. CONCLUSION: Feedback improves the outcome of patients at risk undergoing psychosomatic in-patient treatment.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Although psychosomatic in-patient treatment is effective, 5-10% of the patients deteriorate. Providing patient progress feedback and clinical support tools to therapists improves the outcome for patients at risk of deterioration in counseling, outpatient psychotherapy, and substance abuse treatment. This study investigated the effects of feedback on psychosomatically treated in-patients at risk of treatment failure. METHODS: At intake, all patients of two psychosomatic clinics were randomized either into the experimental group or the treatment-as-usual control group. Both groups were tracked weekly with the "Outcome Questionnaire" (OQ-45) measuring patient progress and with the clinical support tool "Assessment of Signal Cases" (ASC). Therapists received feedback from both instruments for all their experimental group patients. "Patients at risk" were defined as patients who deviated from expected recovery curves by at least one standard deviation. Of 252 patients, 43 patients were at risk: 23 belonged to the experimental group, 20 to the control group. The feedback effect was analyzed using a level-2-model for discontinuous change, effect size (d), reliable change index (RCI), and odds ratio for reliable deterioration. RESULTS: For patients at risk, the experimental group showed an improved outcome on the OQ-45 total scale compared to the control group (p<0.05, d=0.54). By providing feedback, the rate of reliably deteriorated patients at risk was reduced from 25.0% (control group) to 8.7% (experimental group) - odds ratio=0.29. All reliably improved patients at risk belonged to the experimental group. CONCLUSION: Feedback improves the outcome of patients at risk undergoing psychosomatic in-patient treatment.
Authors: Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; John E Kurtz; Donald L Thompson; Rachel A Mack; Jacqueline K Lee; Aileen Rothbard; Susan V Eisen; Robert Gallop; Paul Crits-Christoph Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2015-06-08
Authors: Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Tony Kendrick; Magdy El-Gohary; Beth Stuart; Simon Gilbody; Rachel Churchill; Laura Aiken; Abhishek Bhattacharya; Amy Gimson; Anna L Brütt; Kim de Jong; Michael Moore Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-07-13
Authors: Mike Lucock; Jeremy Halstead; Chris Leach; Michael Barkham; Samantha Tucker; Chloe Randal; Joanne Middleton; Wajid Khan; Hannah Catlow; Emma Waters; David Saxon Journal: Psychother Res Date: 2015
Authors: Wolfgang Lutz; Dirk Zimmermann; Viola N L S Müller; Anne-Katharina Deisenhofer; Julian A Rubel Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 3.630