Cargando…

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Measurement Feedback Systems in Treatment for Common Mental Health Disorders

To investigate the effects of measurement feedback systems (MFSs) in therapy on mental health outcomes through a literature review and meta-analysis. Using a three-level modeling approach, we conducted a meta-analysis of all effect sizes from randomized controlled studies of MFSs used in the treatme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rognstad, Kristian, Wentzel-Larsen, Tore, Neumer, Simon-Peter, Kjøbli, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9931854/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36434313
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-022-01236-9
Descripción
Sumario:To investigate the effects of measurement feedback systems (MFSs) in therapy on mental health outcomes through a literature review and meta-analysis. Using a three-level modeling approach, we conducted a meta-analysis of all effect sizes from randomized controlled studies of MFSs used in the treatment of common mental health disorders. Eighty-two effect sizes were extracted from the thirty-one included studies. Analyses were performed to consider the post-treatment effects of the MFS-assisted treatment compared to treatment as usual. A separate analysis was done for the subgroup “not-on-track” patients as it is theorized that MFSs will be clinically useful because they make therapists aware of patients who fail to progress. MFSs had a significant effect on mental health outcomes (d = 0.14, 95% CI [0.082–0.206], p < .001). Further analysis found a larger effect in patients identified as less respondent to therapy, the “not-on-track” group (d = 0.29, 95% CI [0.114, 0.464], p = .003). Moderation analyses indicated that the type of outcome measurement and type of feedback system used, and whether it was used for a child and youth or adult population, influenced effect sizes. MFSs seem to have a small positive effect on treatment outcomes. The effects seem to be larger for “not-on-track” patients, the group of patients that would usually not benefit much from treatment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10488-022-01236-9.