Routine Outcome Monitoring from Psychotherapists’ Perspectives: A Framework Analysis Study of Expected Benefits and Difficulties
2024

Therapists' Views on Routine Outcome Monitoring in Psychotherapy

Sample size: 20 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Jorge Valdiviezo-Oña, Alejandro Unda-López, Adrián Montesano, Chris Evans, Clara Paz

Primary Institution: Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador

Hypothesis

What are the expected benefits and difficulties of implementing routine outcome monitoring from the perspectives of therapists in Ecuador?

Conclusion

Therapists expressed more anticipated benefits than difficulties regarding the implementation of routine outcome monitoring.

Supporting Evidence

  • Participants highlighted the importance of having a user-friendly system that requires minimal time to use.
  • Therapists noted that the system could facilitate bridging the perspectives between therapists and clients.
  • Most participants reported that the use of a ROM system may help them to better adapt to the needs of each client.
  • Participants expressed concerns about potential technological difficulties and system glitches.
  • Therapists mentioned that excessive quantification might lead to preconceived notions about the client.

Takeaway

Therapists think that using a system to track how well their clients are doing can help them do their jobs better, but they also worry about some problems that might come up.

Methodology

An exploratory and descriptive cross-sectional qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to researchers' pre-existing positive stances towards routine outcome monitoring.

Limitations

The study's findings may not be transferable to other cultural contexts due to specific cultural and contextual factors in Ecuador.

Participant Demographics

Participants included 9 therapists, 9 clinical psychology trainees, and 2 clinical supervisors, with ages ranging from 21 to 47.

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

M = 28.40 [95% CI 25.45, 31.85]; SD = 7.37

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1007/s10488-024-01350-w

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication