Implementation Science and Practice-Oriented Research: Convergence and Complementarity

Intake Characteristics as Predictors of Psychotherapy Outcome in a Practice Research Network in Argentina

There are few studies exploring intake diagnostic characteristics as predictors of change in integrative naturalistic settings. The aim of this study is to explore baseline variables at the intake process and establish the predictive value of the individual trajectories of the patients. We recruited 259 patients undergoing an integrative psychotherapy network of psychotherapists from Buenos Aires, Argentina. Every therapist completed the intake form of each patient involved in the routine outcome monitoring. Thereafter step-wise regressions based on forward selection strategies were used, in order to identify meaningful baseline predictors of patients' clinical evolution, derived from the intake process. The selected predictors were social support network, subjective distress, the initial measure of clinical distress, unemployment, sociocultural status and reactance. When including those six variables in a multilevel model, the results indicate that social support network, subjective distress, and the initial measure of clinical distress were significant predictors of the trajectories of OQ-30, whereas unemployment, sociocultural status and reactance were not significant. The results regarding social support network are in line with the literature, while results of socioeconomic status (unemployment and sociocultural level) move in an opposite direction in comparison to the available evidence. Moreover, the mental health findings (initial OQ-30 and subjective distress) confirm the contradictory body of literature produced in this domain. Finally, reactance seems to be a significant predictor in previous study in contradiction of our results. Overall, this endeavor constitutes important but preliminary evidence to enhance the production of bottom-up science within practice research networks in the global south.

Implementation of an Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) in Naturalistic Psychotherapy Settings: Qualitative Insights from Patients, Therapists, and Supervisors Perspectives

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) allows measuring intra-individual processes moment by moment, identifying and modeling, in a naturalistic way, individual levels and changes in different psychological processes. However, active EMA requires a high degree of adherence, as it implies a significant burden for patients. Moreover, there is still no consensus on standardized procedures for implementation. There have been few results in detecting desirable characteristics for the design and implementation of an EMA device. Studies that address these issues from the perspectives of participants in psychotherapeutic processes are needed. To analyze the perspectives of patients, therapists and supervisors on the implementation of an EMA device in a psychotherapeutic treatment for depression. The sample will include eight patients, eleven therapists and five supervisors, taken from a research project that implemented an EMA system for monitoring the dynamics of affectivity at the beginning of psychotherapies for depression. Semi-structured interviews specific to each group are being conducted and analyzed from a qualitative approach based on consensual qualitative research (CQR). Participants reported having a positive evaluation of the study's informational resources and implementation. Difficulties were expressed in responding in the morning hours and the importance of having a customized EMA that is tailored to the needs of the patients was expressed. Furthermore, patients and therapists agreed that the impact of the use of the monitoring system on treatment was neutral or positive. In contrast, patients considered the EMA to be positive for their daily life.

Using Progress Feedback to Enhance Treatment Outcomes: A Narrative Review

We face increasing demand for greater access to effective routine mental health services, including telehealth. However, treatment outcomes in routine clinical practice are only about half the size of those reported in controlled trials. Progress feedback, defined as the ongoing monitoring of patients' treatment response with standardized measures, is an evidence-based practice that continues to be under-utilized in routine care. The aim of the current review is to provide a summary of the current evidence base for the use of progress feedback, its mechanisms of action and considerations for successful implementation. We reviewed ten available meta-analyses, which report small to medium overall effect sizes. The results suggest that adding feedback to a wide range of psychological and psychiatric interventions (ranging from primary care to hospitalization and crisis care) tends to enhance the effectiveness of these interventions. The strongest evidence is for patients with common mental health problems compared to those with very severe disorders. Effect sizes for not-on-track cases, a subgroup of cases that are not progressing well, are found to be somewhat stronger, especially when clinical support tools are added to the feedback. Systematic reviews and recent studies suggest potential mechanisms of action for progress feedback include focusing the clinician's attention, altering clinician expectations, providing new information, and enhancing patient-centered communication. Promising approaches to strengthen progress feedback interventions include advanced systems with signaling technology, clinical problem-solving tools, and a broader spectrum of outcome and progress measures. An overview of methodological and implementation challenges is provided, as well as suggestions for addressing these issues in future studies. We conclude that while feedback has modest effects, it is a small and affordable intervention that can potentially improve outcomes in psychological interventions. Further research into mechanisms of action and effective implementation strategies is needed.

The Importance of Conducting Practice-oriented Research with Underserved Populations

There has been a growing emphasis on dissemination of empirically supported treatments. Dissemination, however, should not be restricted to treatment. It can and, in the spirit of the scientific-practitioner model, should also involve research. Because it focuses on the investigation of clinical routine as it takes place in local settings and because it can involve the collaboration of several stakeholders, practice-oriented research (POR) can be viewed as an optimal research method to be disseminated. POR has the potential of addressing particularly relevant gaps of knowledge and action when implemented in regions of the world that have limited resources for or experiences with empirical research, and/or in clinical settings that are serving clinical populations who are not typically receiving optimal mental care services - specifically, individuals in rural and inner cities that have limited economic and social resources. The establishment and maintenance of POR in such regions and/or settings, however, come with specific obstacles and challenges. Integrating the experiences acquired from research conducted in various continents (Africa, Europe, Latin America, and North America), the goal of this paper is to describe some of these challenges, strategies that have been implemented to address them, as well as new possible directions to facilitate the creation and growth of POR. It also describes how these challenges and ways to deal with them can provide helpful lessons for already existing POR infrastructures.

Practice-Oriented Research: An Introduction to New Developments and Future Directions

Aimed at understanding and improving psychological therapies as they are conducted in clinical routine, practice-oriented research (POR) is now a well-established approach to the scientific foundations of mental health care services. Resting on the accumulation of a wide range of practice-based evidence related to treatment outcome and process, as well as factors associated with the participants of psychotherapy and its context, POR is ripe for new developments - regarding what to investigate and how to investigate it. This paper is the introduction of a series devoted to recent advances and future directions of POR as their pertained to routine outcome monitoring, technologies and artificial intelligence, the integration of constructs and methods from program evaluation and implementation science, and the investigation of populations with limited financial resources across various regions of the world. The series also includes commentaries from two leaders of POR.

The Promise and Challenges of Practice-Oriented Research: A Commentary on the Special Issue

At the centre of POR is the concept of collaboration between patients, therapists, agencies, and third-party payers. For this commentary, I review the articles of the special issue with attention to both the opportunities and challenges offered by practice-oriented research (POR). I also reviewed some previous research on practice-research networks and how that research might inform POR. The use of routine outcome monitoring (ROM), artificial intelligence (AI), and program evaluation (PE) models show promise for advancing POR. However, each comes with its challenges. The use of ROM to improve patient outcomes has research support. However, researchers have identified problems with implementing ROM because of low uptake by clinicians and because clinicians may see ROM as a potential intrusion. AI shows promise to improve patient outcomes by potentially providing therapists with immediate and nuanced data to inform interventions and interpersonal stances specific to each patient. However, the scaling up of AI runs the risk of dehumanizing psychological interventions. PE may provide a context for allowing therapists to engage in POR to address real-world processes and outcomes of mental health interventions. However, like ROM PE faces the challenge of trust among clinicians and patients who may be reluctant to participate. Despite these challenges, and because of efforts to nurture and maintain respectful collaborations, articles in this special issue highlight how POR can play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between theory and practice.

Data-Informed Communication: How Measurement-Based Care Can Optimize Child Psychotherapy

Measurement-based care (MBC) research and practice, including clinical workflows and systems to support MBC, are grounded in adult-serving mental health systems. MBC research evidence is building in child and adolescent services, but MBC practice is inherently more complex due to identified client age, the family system and the need to involve multiple reporters. This paper seeks to address a gap in the literature by providing practical guidance for youth-serving clinicians implementing MBC with children and their families. We focus on MBC as a data-informed, client-centered communication process, and present three key strategies to enhance usual care child and adolescent psychotherapy via developmentally-appropriate MBC. These strategies include (1) go beyond standardized measures; (2) lean into discrepancies; and (3) get curious together. Case-based examples drawn from various child-serving settings illustrate these key strategies of MBC in child psychotherapy.

A Clinical Leadership Lens on Implementing Progress Feedback in Three Countries: Development of a Multidimensional Qualitative Coding Scheme

BACKGROUND

Progress feedback, also known as measurement-based care (MBC), is the routine collection of patient-reported measures to monitor treatment progress and inform clinical decision-making. Although a key ingredient to improving mental health care, sustained use of progress feedback is poor. Integration into everyday workflow is challenging, impacted by a complex interrelated set of factors across patient, clinician, organizational, and health system levels. This study describes the development of a qualitative coding scheme for progress feedback implementation that accounts for the dynamic nature of barriers and facilitators across multiple levels of use in mental health settings. Such a coding scheme may help promote a common language for researchers and implementers to better identify barriers that need to be addressed, as well as facilitators that could be supported in different settings and contexts.

METHODS

Clinical staff, managers, and leaders from two Dutch, three Norwegian, and four mental health organizations in the USA participated in semi-structured interviews on how intra- and extra-organizational characteristics interact to influence the use of progress feedback in clinical practice, supervision, and program improvement. Interviews were conducted in the local language, then translated to English prior to qualitative coding.

RESULTS

A team-based consensus coding approach was used to refine an a priori expert-informed and literature-based qualitative scheme to incorporate new understandings and constructs as they emerged. First, this hermeneutic approach resulted in a multi-level coding scheme with nine superordinate categories and 30 subcategories. Second-order axial coding established contextually sensitive categories for barriers and facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary outcome is an empirically derived multi-level qualitative coding scheme that can be used in progress feedback implementation research and development. It can be applied across contexts and settings, with expectations for ongoing refinement. Suggestions for future research and application in practice settings are provided. Supplementary materials include the coding scheme and a detailed playbook.

A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes Regarding Personalized Provider Selection and Patient-Therapist Matching

This study explored mental health care patients and therapists' perspectives on using therapists' measurement-based and problem-specific effectiveness data to inform case assignments - a type of treatment personalization that has been shown to outperform non-measurement-based case assignment as usual (Constantino et al., 2021). We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 8 patients (75% women; M age = 33.75 years) and 8 therapists (75% women; M age = 47.50 years). The interview protocols were unique to stakeholder group. Recorded responses were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by four judges using a blend of consensual qualitative research and grounded theory methods. Derived patient domains included preferred characteristics of a provider, and experiences and suggestions regarding provider selection. Within the domains, most patients expressed an interest in accessing more specific provider information online. Additionally, most patients indicated that both provider outcome track records and personal preference information (e.g., therapist characteristics) should be considered in the therapist selection process. All patients endorsed being comfortable with having the ability to select a provider based on a list of empirically well-matched recommendations. Derived therapist domains included using routine outcomes monitoring for patient-provider matching, referral source and direct patient use of preferred provider lists, and improvements to the provider selection process. Within the domains, all therapists remarked that outcome data would be useful for matching patients to providers; however, most also indicated that outcome data should not be the only factor used in provider selection. All therapists expressed a willingness to be included in preferred provider lists that incorporate track record data. Overall, both patients and therapists held generally positive views toward using therapist effectiveness data to help personalize mental health care. Yet, both stakeholder groups acknowledged that other personalization factors should be considered alongside these data. Based on these results, our team is in the process of implementing patient-therapist match strategies in larger and more diverse mental health care contexts.