Skip to main content

Lessons Learned from the Implementation of a Feedback System in Couple and Family Therapy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Routine Outcome Monitoring in Couple and Family Therapy

Part of the book series: European Family Therapy Association Series ((EFTAS))

Abstract

Many good projects fail despite good intentions and general support. When projects in addition involve research in clinical environments, the risk is even greater for failure. This is particularly the case when introducing quantitative research into couple and family therapy contexts, challenging core theoretical assumptions of the systemic field. The authors share experiences from a multicenter pilot project regarding implementing systematic feedback at three family therapy units in Norway. The findings are discussed in light of knowledge from implementation and project theories. And it is especially by discussing the implementation failures that the authors wish to convey lessons learned to the reader. Therefore, the presentation mainly focuses on the unit that in particular experienced many ups and downs in the implementation process that are described and discussed through five phases. The chapter identifies barriers and challenges that one should be familiar with before initiating a project, and how these can be met in order to increase the chance of an implementation success.

Adapted from Tilden et al. (2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    KOR is a Norwegian acronym for Klient—og resultatstyrt praksis, also called Feedback Informed Therapy, using the ORS (Outcome Rating Scale) and the SRS (Session Rating Scale)—(Duncan et al. 2010).

References

  • Andersen, E. S. (2006). Toward a project management theory for renewal projects. Project Management Journal, 37, 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anker, M. G., Duncan, B. L., & Sparks, J. A. (2009). Using client feedback to improve couple therapy outcomes: A randomized clinical trial in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 693–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, J. F., Kraus, D. R., Miller, S. D., & Lambert, M. J. (2015). Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychotherapy Research, 25(1), 6–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brownson, R. C., Kreuter, M. W., Arrington, B. A., & True, W. R. (2006). Translating scientific discoveries into public health action: How can schools of public health move us forward? Public Health Reports, 121, 97–103.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Castonguay, L. G., & Muran, J. C. (2015). Fostering collaboration between researchers and clinicians through building practice-oriented research: An introduction. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, A., & Dalgaard, M. (2013). Implementering af Feedback Informed Treatment i institutioner. Fokus på familien, 41(4), 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, K., Van Sluis, P., Nugter, M. A., Heiser, W. J., & Spinhoven, P. (2012). Understanding the differential impact of outcome monitoring: Therapist variables that moderate feedback effects in a randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy Research, 22(4), 464–474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, B., Miller, S. D., Wampold, B. E., & Hubble, M. (Eds.). (2010). The heart and soul of change. Delivering what works (2nd ed.). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. f., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2016.

  • Flottorp, S., & Aakhus, E. (2013). Implementeringsforskning: vitenskap for forbedring av praksis. Norsk Epidemiologi, 23, 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friis, S., & Vaglum, P. (1999). Fra idé til prosjekt: en innføring i klinisk forskning. Oslo: Tano Aschehoug.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havik, O. (2011). Langt fra forskning til klinikk. http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-psykiskhelse/Nyheter/Nyhet/1253964493280?lang=no. Accessed July 26, 2016.

  • Johnsen, A., & Torsteinsson, V. W. (2012). Lærebok i familieterapi. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krägeloh, C. U., Czuba, K. J., Billington, D. R., Kersten, P., & Siegert, R. J. (2015). Using feedback from patient-reported outcome measures in mental health services: A scoping study and typology. Psychiatric Services, 55(3), 224–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M. (2007). Presidential address: What we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M. J., & Shimokawa, K. (2011). Collecting client feedback. Psychotherapy, 48, 72–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2010). The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments: A review of current efforts. American Psychologist, 65, 73–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. D., Hubble, M. A., Chow, D., & Seidel, J. (2015). Beyond measures and monitoring: Realizing the potential of feedback-informed treatment. Psychotherapy, 52, 449–457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oanes, C. J., Borg, M., & Karlsson, B. (2015). Significant conversations or reduced relational capacity? Exploring couple and family therapists’ expectations for including a client feedback procedure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 342–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsof, W. M., & Chambers, A. (2009). Empirically informed systemic psychotherapy: Tracking patient change and therapist behavior during therapy. In J. Bray & M. Stanton (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of family psychology (pp. 431–446). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsof, W. M., Goldsmith, J. Z., & Latta, A. T. (2012). Information technology and feedback research can bridge the scientist-practitioner gap: A couple therapy example. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(4), 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, T. L., Datchi, C., Evans, L., LaFollette, J., & Wright, L. (2013). The effectiveness of couple and family-based clinical interventions. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.) Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th., pp. 587–639). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solem, M.-B., Tilden, T., & Thuen, F. (2008). Å ta empirien på alvor. Fokus på familien, 36, 88–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundet, R. (2012). Therapist perspectives on the use of feedback on process and outcome: Patient-focused research and practice. Canadian Psychology, 53(2), 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørlie, M.-A., Ogden, T., Solholm, R., & Olseth, A. R. (2010). Implementeringskvalitet – om å få tiltak til å virke. En oversikt. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 47, 315–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilden, T. (2010). The course and outcome of dyadic adjustment and individual distress during and after residential couple therapy. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo. Dissertation No. 1015. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/27917/dravhandling-tilden.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed July 26, 2016.

  • Tilden, T., Håland, Å. T., Hunnes, K., Fossli, G., & Oanes, C. J. (2015). Utprøving av systematisk tilbakemelding i par- og familieterapi. Fokus på familien, 43, 292–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilden, T., Håland, Å. T., Hunnes, K., Lærum, K., Finset, A., & Gude, T. (2010). Internett-basert tilbakemelding i par- og familieterapi: Erfaringer med empiriinformert terapi. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 47, 1115–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuseth, A. G., Sverdrup, S., Hjort, H., & Friestad, C. (2006). Å spørre den det gjelder. Rapport, R-BUP, Region helse Sør-Øst: Erfaringer med bruk av klient- og resultatstyrt terapi i psykisk helsearbeid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utvåg, K. M., Steinkopf, S., & Holgersen, H. (2014). Vilkår for klinisk autonomi og dens betydning for praksis. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening, 51, 861–867.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walfish, S., McAlister, B., O’Donnell, P., & Lambert, M. J. (2012). An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Psychological Reports, 110, 639–644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This chapter is processed on the basis of the following article: Tilden et al. (2015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Åshild Tellefsen Håland .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Håland, Å.T., Tilden, T. (2017). Lessons Learned from the Implementation of a Feedback System in Couple and Family Therapy. In: Tilden, T., Wampold, B. (eds) Routine Outcome Monitoring in Couple and Family Therapy. European Family Therapy Association Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50675-3_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics