Effects of Systematic Patient Feedback on Therapy Outcome
Effects of Systematic Patient Feedback on Therapy Outcome and Dropout: A Randomized Controlled Study on Adult Out-patients at a Community Mental Health Centre.
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Trondheim, Norway
- Tiller Distriktspsykiatriske Senter
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
The aim is to include a total of 128 patients.
Inclusion Criteria:
- Referred for treatment of mental disorder(s)
Exclusion Criteria:
- Psychiatric emergency
- Poor/no understanding of Norwegian language
- Lack of ability to execute the practical procedures required for the project
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Feedback
Feedback system included in psychotherapy
|
The Partners for Change Outcome Management System, administered at the beginning and ending of every therapy session.
Other Names:
|
|
Active Comparator: control
Psychotherapy as usual
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Health care utilization
Time Frame: 12 months
|
Referral- and drop-out rate
|
12 months
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Symptom level
Time Frame: T 0 (baseline) and T4 (6 months, end of treatment)
|
Outcome Rating Scale and BASIS 32 and WHO-5
|
T 0 (baseline) and T4 (6 months, end of treatment)
|
|
Patient satisfaction
Time Frame: T0, T2 (2 months), T4 (6 months, end of treatment)
|
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8; Attkinson & Zwick, 1982)
|
T0, T2 (2 months), T4 (6 months, end of treatment)
|
|
Level of functioning
Time Frame: T1 (1 hour start of treatment) and T4 (6 months or end of treatment)
|
Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; Hall, 1995)
|
T1 (1 hour start of treatment) and T4 (6 months or end of treatment)
|
|
Preferences for involvement in decision making
Time Frame: T0, T2 (2 months) and T3 (3 months)
|
Modified Control Preferences Scale (6 items)
|
T0, T2 (2 months) and T3 (3 months)
|
|
Patient Activation Measure
Time Frame: T0, T1 (1 hour start of treatment), T3 (3 months) and T4 (6 months)
|
Patient Activation Measure Mental Health Questionnaire (13 items)
|
T0, T1 (1 hour start of treatment), T3 (3 months) and T4 (6 months)
|
|
Alliance
Time Frame: T1 (1 hour start of treatment), T2 (2 months
|
Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S)
|
T1 (1 hour start of treatment), T2 (2 months
|
Other Outcome Measures
Other Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Use of health services
Time Frame: 12 months
|
Number of visits at general practitioner or other health services
|
12 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Study Chair: Olav M Linaker, MD, PhD, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
- Principal Investigator: Mariela M Lara, MA, National Taiwan Normal University
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Brattland H, Koksvik JM, Burkeland O, Grawe RW, Klockner C, Linaker OM, Ryum T, Wampold B, Lara-Cabrera ML, Iversen VC. The effects of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) on therapy outcomes in the course of an implementation process: A randomized clinical trial. J Couns Psychol. 2018 Oct;65(5):641-652. doi: 10.1037/cou0000286. Epub 2018 Aug 16.
- Brattland H, Koksvik JM, Burkeland O, Klockner CA, Lara-Cabrera ML, Miller SD, Wampold B, Ryum T, Iversen VC. Does the working alliance mediate the effect of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and alliance feedback on psychotherapy outcomes? A secondary analysis from a randomized clinical trial. J Couns Psychol. 2019 Mar;66(2):234-246. doi: 10.1037/cou0000320. Epub 2019 Jan 31.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2011/1271 (Registry Identifier: Regional committee for medical research ethics)
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.