Christian Moltu1, Marius Veseth2, Jon Stefansen1, Jan Christian Nøtnes3, Åse Skjølberg1, Per-Einar Binder4, Louis Georges Castonguay5, Samuel S Nordberg1. 1. a Department of Psychiatry , District General Hospital of Førde , Førde , Norway. 2. b Faculty of Health and Social Sciences , Bergen University College , Bergen , Norway. 3. c Division of Mental Health Services , Akershus University Hospital , Lørenskog , Norway. 4. d Department of Clinical Psychology , University of Bergen , Bergen , Norway. 5. e Department of Psychology , The Pennsylvania State University , University Park , PA , USA.
Abstract
Routine outcome monitoring and clinical feedback systems (ROM/CFSs) are promising methods of providing naturalistic research data and enhancing mental health care. However, implementation in routine care is challenging, and we need more knowledge about clinicians' and patients' needs from such systems. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study perspectives of clinicians and patients to explore how ROM/CFS can be helpful and acceptable to them. METHOD: We interviewed 55 participants in focus groups and individual interviews and analyzed the data through rigorous team-based qualitative analyses. RESULTS: We report 3 overarching domains: (a) Shared needs, (b) Specific patient needs, and (c) Specific therapist needs. Shared needs, in which perspectives of different stakeholders converge, was the dominant domain in the material. Under each domain, we report 3 specific themes: (a1) Degree of trust in therapy, (a2) Allowing for openness, (a3) Monitoring joint objectives; (b1) Life functioning, (b2) Canary in the coal mine, (b3) Holistic report; and (c1) Emotional presence and style, (c2) Monitoring risk and symptoms, and (c3) Agency and ownership of process. CONCLUSIONS: In what should increase our confidence toward core aspects of ROM, we suggest that an integration of relational feedback concepts and stringent clinical dimension tracking into the ROM/CFS can be beneficial.
Routine outcome monitoring and clinical feedback systems (ROM/CFSs) are promising methods of providing naturalistic research data and enhancing mental health care. However, implementation in routine care is challenging, and we need more knowledge about clinicians' and patients' needs from such systems. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to study perspectives of clinicians and patients to explore how ROM/CFS can be helpful and acceptable to them. METHOD: We interviewed 55 participants in focus groups and individual interviews and analyzed the data through rigorous team-based qualitative analyses. RESULTS: We report 3 overarching domains: (a) Shared needs, (b) Specific patient needs, and (c) Specific therapist needs. Shared needs, in which perspectives of different stakeholders converge, was the dominant domain in the material. Under each domain, we report 3 specific themes: (a1) Degree of trust in therapy, (a2) Allowing for openness, (a3) Monitoring joint objectives; (b1) Life functioning, (b2) Canary in the coal mine, (b3) Holistic report; and (c1) Emotional presence and style, (c2) Monitoring risk and symptoms, and (c3) Agency and ownership of process. CONCLUSIONS: In what should increase our confidence toward core aspects of ROM, we suggest that an integration of relational feedback concepts and stringent clinical dimension tracking into the ROM/CFS can be beneficial.
Authors: Amanda Jensen-Doss; Susan Douglas; Dominique A Phillips; Ozgur Gencdur; Amber Zalman; Noelle Elena Gomez Journal: Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health Date: 2020-08-18
Authors: Hallie Espel-Huynh; Heather Thompson-Brenner; James F Boswell; Fengqing Zhang; Adrienne S Juarascio; Michael R Lowe Journal: Eur Eat Disord Rev Date: 2020-01-28
Authors: Pål André Hegland; Anny Aasprang; Ronette L Kolotkin; Christian Moltu; Grethe S Tell; John Roger Andersen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alison K Beck; Peter J Kelly; Frank P Deane; Amanda L Baker; Leanne Hides; Victoria Manning; Anthony Shakeshaft; Joanne Neale; John F Kelly; Rebecca M Gray; Angela Argent; Ryan McGlaughlin; Ryan Chao; Marcos Martini Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Thomas Solgaard Svendsen; Jone Bjornestad; Tale Ekeroth Slyngstad; James R McKay; Aleksander Waagan Skaalevik; Marius Veseth; Christian Moltu; Sverre Nesvaag Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Date: 2020-01-23