Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methods of Delivering Progress Feedback to Optimise Patient Outcomes: The Value of Expected Treatment Trajectories

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognitive Therapy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Whilst feedback is demonstrated to improve therapy outcomes, little attention has been given to the relative benefits of the form in which feedback is given. The present study aimed to compare patients’ perceptions of feedback graphs with and without expected treatment response trajectories. In a counter-balanced design, patients in 2-week CBT programs were shown feedback graphs with and without expected symptom trajectories; and were asked to complete questionnaire regarding the appeal after viewing the first graphs. Patients (n = 42) viewed feedback graphs and preferred those with trajectories present and perceived the additional detail helpful to both themselves and their therapists. The present findings support the appeal for and potential usefulness of richer feedback for facilitating discussion and positive outcomes in therapy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bar-Kalifa, E., Atzil-Slonim, D., Rafaeli, E., Peri, T., Rubel, J., & Lutz, W. (2016). Therapist-client agreement in assessments of clients’ functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(12), 1127–1134. doi:10.1037/ccp0000157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bech, P., Gudex, C., & Johansen, K. S. (1996). The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: Validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 183–190. doi:10.1159/000289073.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L., Kelley, S. D., Breda, C., de Andrade, A. R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Effects of routine feedback to clinicians on mental health outcomes of youths: Results of a randomized trial. Psychiatric Services, 62(12), 1423–1429. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.002052011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Delgadillo, J., Moreea, O., & Lutz, W. (2016). Different people respond differently to therapy: A demonstration using patient profiling and risk stratification. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 79, 15–22. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.02.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, K., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2014). Development and psychometrics of the five item daily index in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 152–154, 409–415. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, K., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2016). Effects of providing domain specific progress monitoring and feedback to therapists and patients on outcome. Psychotherapy Research, 26(3), 297–306. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.983207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, C., Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Nielsen, S. L., Smart, D. W., Shimokawa, K., & Sutton, S. W. (2005). A Lab Test and Algorithms for Identifying Clients at Risk for Treatment Failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 155–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, K. I., Moras, K., Brill, P. L., Martinovich, Z., & Lutz, W. (1996). Evaluation of psychotherapy efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. American Psychologist, 51, 1059–1064. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.51.10.1059.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kashyap, S., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2015). Identifying risk of deliberate self-harm through longitudinal monitoring of psychological distress in an inpatient psychiatric population. BMC Psychiatry, 15. doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0464-3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick, T., El-Gohary, M., Stuart, B., Gilbody, S., Churchill, R., Aiken, L., ... Moore, M (2016). Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7, CD011119.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M. J., & Finch, A. E. (1999). The outcome questionnaire. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd edn., pp. 831–869). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., & Finch, A. E. (2001). Patient-focused research: Using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 159–172.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Slade, K. L., Whipple, J. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2005). Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients’ progress: Clinical results and practice suggestions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 165–174. doi:10.1002/jclp.20113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W. (2003). Efficacy, effectiveness, and expected treatment response in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(7), 745–750.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lutz, W., Leach, C., Barkham, M., Lucock, M., Stiles, W. B., Evans, C., ... Iveson, S (2005). Predicting change for individual psychotherapy clients on the basis of their nearest neighbors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 904–913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newnham, E. A., Doyle, E. L., Sng, A. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2012). Improving clinical outcomes in psychiatric care with touch-screen technology. Psychological Services, 9(2), 221–223. doi:10.1037/a0026143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newnham, E. A., Harwood, K. E., & Page, A. C. (2007). Evaluating the clinical significance of responses by psychiatric inpatients to the mental health subscales of the SF-36. Journal of Affective Disorders, 98(1–2), 91–97. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2006.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newnham, E. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2010a). Monitoring treatment response and outcomes using the World Health Organization’s Wellbeing Index in psychiatric care. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122(1–2), 133–138. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newnham, E. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2010b). Progress monitoring and feedback in psychiatric care reduces depressive symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 127(1–3), 139–146. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2010.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Newnham, E. A., & Page, A. C. (2010). Bridging the gap between best evidence and best practice in mental health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(1), 127–142. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Page, A. C., Cunningham, N. K., & Hooke, G. R. (2016). Using daily monitoring of psychiatric symptoms to evaluate hospital length of stay. British Journal of Psychiatry Open, 2(6), 341–345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Page, A. C., Hooke, G. R., & Rampono, J. (2005). A methodology for timing reviews of inpatient hospital stay. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(3), 198–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Page, A. C., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (2014). Clinical psychology for trainees: Foundations of science-informed practice (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Restifo, E., Kashyap, S., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2015). Daily monitoring of temporal trajectories of suicidal ideation predict self-injury: a novel application of patient progress monitoring. Psychother Research, doi:10.1080/10503307.2015.1006707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronk, F. R., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2012). How consistent are clinical significance classifications when calculation methods and outcome measures differ? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 19(2), 167–179. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.2012.01281.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronk, F. R., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2016). Validity of clinically significant change classifications yielded by Jacobson-Truax and Hageman-Arrindell methods. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–9. doi:10.1186/s12888-016-0895-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronk, F. R., Korman, J. R., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2013). Assessing clinical significance of treatment outcomes using the DASS-21. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1103–1110. doi:10.1037/a0033100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubel, J., Lutz, W., Kopta, S. M., Kock, K., Minami, T., Zimmermann, D., & Saunders, S. M. (2015). Defining early positive response to psychotherapy: An empirical comparison between clinically significant change criteria and growth mixture modeling. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 478–488. doi:10.1037/pas0000060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulte, D., & Eifert, G. H. (2002). What to do when manuals fail? The dual model of psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(3), 312–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. W. (2010). Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: Meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 298–311. doi:10.1037/a0019247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The researchers acknowledge the support of Moira Munro.

Funding

The research was funded in part by the Australian Research Council grant LP150100503, received by Andrew C. Page and Geoffrey R. Hooke.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Perth Clinic, West Perth, Australia

    Geoffrey R. Hooke, Adelln A. H. Sng, Nadia K. Cunningham & Andrew C. Page

  2. School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009, Australia

    Nadia K. Cunningham & Andrew C. Page

Authors
  1. Geoffrey R. Hooke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adelln A. H. Sng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nadia K. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew C. Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew C. Page.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Geoffrey R. Hooke, Adelln A. H. Sng, Nadia K. Cunningham and Andrew C. Page declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hooke, G.R., Sng, A.A.H., Cunningham, N.K. et al. Methods of Delivering Progress Feedback to Optimise Patient Outcomes: The Value of Expected Treatment Trajectories. Cogn Ther Res 42, 204–211 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9851-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-017-9851-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation