Jaime Delgadillo1, Karen Overend2, Mike Lucock3, Martin Groom4, Naomi Kirby4, Dean McMillan2, Simon Gilbody2, Wolfgang Lutz5, Julian A Rubel5, Kim de Jong6. 1. Clinical Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK. Electronic address: jaime.delgadillo@nhs.net. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK. 3. Centre for Applied Research in Health, University of Huddersfield, South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, UK. 4. Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust, UK. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Germany. 6. Institute of Psychology, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIMS: This study evaluated the impact of applying computerized outcome feedback (OF) technology in a stepped care psychological service offering low and high intensity therapies for depression and anxiety. METHODS: A group of therapists were trained to use OF based on routine outcome monitoring using depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) measures. Therapists regularly reviewed expected treatment response graphs with patients and discussed cases that were "not on track" in clinical supervision. Clinical outcomes data were collected for all patients treated by this group (N = 594), six months before (controls = 349) and six months after the OF training (OF cases = 245). Symptom reductions in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were compared between controls and OF cases using longitudinal multilevel modelling. Treatment duration and costs were compared using MANOVA. Qualitative interviews with therapists (N = 15) and patients (N = 6) were interpreted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: OF technology was generally acceptable and feasible to integrate in routine practice. No significant between-group differences were found in post-treatment PHQ-9 or GAD-7 measures. However, OF cases had significantly lower average duration and cost of treatment compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: After adopting OF into their practice, this group of therapists attained similar clinical outcomes but within a shorter space of time and at a reduced average cost per treatment episode. We conclude that OF can improve the efficiency of stepped care.
AIMS: This study evaluated the impact of applying computerized outcome feedback (OF) technology in a stepped care psychological service offering low and high intensity therapies for depression and anxiety. METHODS: A group of therapists were trained to use OF based on routine outcome monitoring using depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) measures. Therapists regularly reviewed expected treatment response graphs with patients and discussed cases that were "not on track" in clinical supervision. Clinical outcomes data were collected for all patients treated by this group (N = 594), six months before (controls = 349) and six months after the OF training (OF cases = 245). Symptom reductions in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were compared between controls and OF cases using longitudinal multilevel modelling. Treatment duration and costs were compared using MANOVA. Qualitative interviews with therapists (N = 15) and patients (N = 6) were interpreted using thematic analysis. RESULTS: OF technology was generally acceptable and feasible to integrate in routine practice. No significant between-group differences were found in post-treatment PHQ-9 or GAD-7 measures. However, OF cases had significantly lower average duration and cost of treatment compared to controls. CONCLUSIONS: After adopting OF into their practice, this group of therapists attained similar clinical outcomes but within a shorter space of time and at a reduced average cost per treatment episode. We conclude that OF can improve the efficiency of stepped care.
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: Günter Schiepek; Barbara Stöger-Schmidinger; Helmut Kronberger; Wolfgang Aichhorn; Leonhard Kratzer; Peter Heinz; Kathrin Viol; Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff; Helmut Schöller Journal: Clin Psychol Psychother Date: 2019-07-10
Authors: Atif Adam; Ameena Jain; Alexandra Pletnikova; Rishi Bagga; Allison Vita; Lisa N Richey; Neda Gould; Supriya Munshaw; Kavi Misrilall; Matthew E Peters Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-07-03
Authors: Elizabeth H Connors; Susan Douglas; Amanda Jensen-Doss; Sara J Landes; Cara C Lewis; Bryce D McLeod; Cameo Stanick; Aaron R Lyon Journal: Adm Policy Ment Health Date: 2021-03
Authors: Patricia Gual-Montolio; Verónica Martínez-Borba; Juana María Bretón-López; Jorge Osma; Carlos Suso-Ribera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Edwin de Beurs; Ellen Vissers; Robert Schoevers; Ingrid V E Carlier; Albert M van Hemert; Ybe Meesters Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 6.505