https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2022.647
The feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a feedback-informed group treatment (FIGT) tool for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders
Submitted: June 19, 2022
Accepted: September 7, 2022
Published: September 19, 2022
Accepted: September 7, 2022
Abstract Views: 2825
PDF: 387
HTML: 12
HTML: 12
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Monitoring treatment progress by the use of standardized measures in individual therapy, also called feedback-informed treatment (FIT), has a small but significant effect on improving outcomes. Results of FIT in group therapy settings are mixed, possibly due to contextual factors. The goals of this study were to investigate the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a feedback-informed group treatment (FIGT) tool, based on the principles of the Contextual Feedback Theory and earlier FIGT research. Patients with anxiety or depressive disorders following interpersonal or cognitive behavioural group psychotherapy (IPT-G or CBT-G) were randomized to either feedback (n=104) or Treatment As Usual (TAU; n=93). In the feedback condition, patients filled out the Outcome-Questionnaire 45 (OQ-45) weekly in a FIGT tool and therapists were instructed to discuss the results in each session. Dropout, attendance and outcomes were measured. Additionally, in the feedback condition, OQ-45 response, feedback discussions and acceptability by patients and therapists were assessed. Results showed no differences on dropout, but lower attendance rates in the feedback condition. Although therapists reported high rates of feedback use and helpfulness, patients experienced that results were discussed with them only half of the time and they were also less optimistic about its usefulness. The findings indicate that the FIGT instrument was partially feasible, more acceptable to therapists than patients, and was not effective as intended. Future research is needed to discover how feedback can be beneficial for both therapists and patients in group therapy.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Banyard, H., Behn, A.J. & Delgadillo, J. Personality Disorders and Their Relation to Treatment Outcomes in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Cogn Ther Res 45, 561–576 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10203-x
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10203-x
Bickman L. (2008). A measurement feedback system (MFS) is necessary to improve mental health outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(10), 1114–1119. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181825af8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181825af8
Burlingame, G. M., Seebeck, J. D., Janis, R. A., Whitcomb, K. E., Barkowski, S., Rosendahl, J., & Strauss, B. (2016). Outcome differences between individual and group formats when identical and nonidentical treatments, patients, and doses are compared: A 25-year meta-analytic perspective. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 53(4), 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000090
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000090
Burlingame, G. M., Whitcomb, K. E., Woodland, S. C., Olsen, J. A., Beecher, M., & Gleave, R. (2018). The effects of relationship and progress feedback in group psychotherapy using the Group Questionnaire and Outcome Questionnaire-45: A randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 55(2), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000133
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000133
Byrne, S. L., Hooke, G. R., Newnham, E. A., & Page, A. C. (2012). The effects of progress monitoring on subsequent readmission to psychiatric care: a six-month follow-up. Journal of affective disorders, 137(1-3), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.005
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2011.12.005
Chapman, C. L., Burlingame, G. M., Gleave, R., Rees, F., Beecher, M., & Porter, G. S. (2012). Clinical prediction in group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 22(6), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2012.702512
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2012.702512
Davidsen, A. H., Poulsen, S., Lindschou, J., Winkel, P., Tróndarson, M. F., Waaddegaard, M., & Lau, M. (2017). Feedback in group psychotherapy for eating disorders: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 85(5), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000173
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000173
De Beurs, E., Van Dyck, R., Marquenie, L. A., Lange, A., & Blonk, R. W. (2001). De DASS: een vragenlijst voor het meten van depressie, angst en stress. Gedragstherapie, 34(1), 35-54.
De Jong, K., Conijn, J. M., Gallagher, R., Reshetnikova, A. S., Heij, M., & Lutz, M. C. (2021). Using progress feedback to improve outcomes and reduce drop-out, treatment duration, and deterioration: A multilevel meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 85, 102002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102002
De Jong, K., Nugter, M. A., Lambert, M. J., & Burlingame, G. M. (2008). Handleiding voor afname van de Outcome Questionnaire OQ-45.2. Salt Lake City, UT: OQ Measures LLC.
De Jong, K., Nugter, M. A., Polak, M. G., Wagenborg, J. E. A., Spinhoven, P., & Heiser, W. J. (2007). The Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) in a Dutch population: A cross-cultural validation. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 14(4), 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.529
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.529
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 : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 22(4), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2012.673023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2012.673023
Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (1990). Consistency of Matter: A Comparative Analysis of Individual and Group Process Variables. The Counseling Psychologist, 18(1), 6–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100009018100
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000090181002
Gleave, R. L., Burlingame, G. M., Beecher, M. E., Griner, D., Hansen, K., & Jenkins, S. A. (2017). Feedback-informed group treatment: Application of the OQ–45 and Group Questionnaire. In Feedback-informed treatment in clinical practice: Reaching for excellence. (pp. 141-166). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0000039-008
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20108
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20108
Hatfield, D., McCullough, L., Frantz, S. H., & Krieger, K. (2010). Do we know when our clients get worse? an investigation of therapists' ability to detect negative client change. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 17(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.656
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.656
Hutson, J., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2020). Progress monitoring and feedback delivered in routine psychiatric care: Beneficial but not reaching those thought to need it most. Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 30(7), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2019.1710305
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2019.1710305
Koementas-de Vos, M. W., van Dijk, M., Tiemens, B., de Jong, K., Witteman, C. L. M. & Nugter, M. A. (2022). Feedback-informed Group Treatment: A Qualitative Study of the Experiences and Needs of Patients and Therapists. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 72 (3), 193-227, DOI: 10.1080/00207284.2022.2086557
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2022.2086557
Koementas-de Vos, M., Nugter, M. A., Engelsbel, F., & De Jong, K. (2018). Does progress feedback enhance the outcome of group psychotherapy?. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 55(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000164
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000164
Lambert, M. J., Kahler, M., Harmon, C., Burlingame, G. M., Shimokawa, K., White, M. M. (2013). Administration and Scoring Manual: Outcome Questionnaire OQ®-45.2. Salt Lake City, UT: OQMeasures.
Lambert, M. J., & Lo Coco, G. (2013). Simple methods for enhancing patient outcome in routine care: Measuring, monitoring, and feedback. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 16(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2013.147
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2013.147
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., & Kleinstäuber, M. (2018). Collecting and delivering progress feedback: A meta-analysis of routine outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy (Chicago, Ill.), 55(4), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000167
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000167
Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M., Puspitasari, A., Navarro, E., Howard, J., Kassab, H., Hoffman, M., Scott, K., Lyon, A., Douglas, S., Simon, G., & Kroenke, K. (2019). Implementing Measurement-Based Care in Behavioral Health: A Review. JAMA psychiatry, 76(3), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3329
Lutz, W., De Jong, K., & Rubel, J. (2015). Patient-focused and feedback research in psychotherapy: Where are we and where do we want to go?. Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 25(6), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1079661
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2015.1079661
Newnham, E. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2010). Progress monitoring and feedback in psychiatric care reduces depressive symptoms. Journal of affective disorders, 127(1-3), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.05.003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.05.003
Østergård, O. K., Randa, H., & Hougaard, E. (2020). The effect of using the Partners for Change Outcome Management System as feedback tool in psychotherapy-A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 30(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2018.1517949
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2018.1517949
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance). (2016). Official Journal, L 119, 1-88.
Peugh J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of school psychology, 48(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002
Priebe, S., Huxley, P., Knight, S., & Evans, S. (1999). Application and results of the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). The International journal of social psychiatry, 45(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409904500102
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002076409904500102
Sapyta, J., Riemer, M., & Bickman, L. (2005). Feedback to clinicians: theory, research, and practice. Journal of clinical psychology, 61(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20107
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20107
Schuman, D. L., Slone, N. C., Reese, R. J., & Duncan, B. (2015). Efficacy of client feedback in group psychotherapy with soldiers referred for substance abuse treatment. Psychotherapy research : journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 25(4), 396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.900875
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.900875
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019247
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019247
Slone, N. C., Reese, R. J., Mathews-Duvall, S., & Kodet, J. (2015). Evaluating the efficacy of client feedback in group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000026
Strauss, B., Burlingame, G. M., & Bormann, B. (2008). Using the CORE-R battery in group psychotherapy. Journal of clinical psychology, 64(11), 1225–1237. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20535
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20535
Timman, R., de Jong, K., & de Neve-Enthoven, N. (2017). Cut-off Scores and Clinical Change Indices for the Dutch Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) in a Large Sample of Normal and Several Psychotherapeutic Populations. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy, 24(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1979
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1979
Nieuwenhuizen, C. van, Janssen-de Ruijter, E.A.W., & Nugter, M. (2017). Handleiding Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). Eindhoven: Stichting QoLM.
Walfish, S., McAlister, B., O'Donnell, P., & Lambert, M. J. (2012). An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Psychological reports, 110(2), 639–644. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.17.PR0.110.2.639-644
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.17.PR0.110.2.639-644
Weissman, M. M., Markowitz, J. C., & Klerman, G. L. (2017). The guide to interpersonal psychotherapy: updated and expanded edition. Oxford University Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190662592.003.0001
Whitfield, G. (2010). Group cognitive–behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 16(3), 219-227. doi:10.1192/apt.bp.108.005744
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/apt.bp.108.005744
Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Evaluation of an Online System for Routine Outcome Monitoring: Cross-sectional Survey Study. JMIR mental health, 8(12), e29243. https://doi.org/10.2196/29243
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/29243
How to Cite
Koementas-de Vos, M. M. W. ., Colleye, L. C., Tiemens, B., Engelsbel, F., de Jong, K. ., Witteman, C. L. M., & Nugter, M. A. (2022). The feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a feedback-informed group treatment (FIGT) tool for patients with anxiety or depressive disorders. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2022.647
Copyright (c) 2022 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Similar Articles
- Catalina Sieverson, Marcia Olhaberry, Javiera Duarte, Javier Morán-Kneer, Stefanella Costa, M. José León, Sofía Valenzuela, Fanny Leyton, Carolina Honorato, Antonia Muzard, Beyond the outcomes: generic change indicators in a video-feedback intervention with a depressed mother and her baby: a single case study , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 25 No. 1 (2022)
- Elizabeth Li, Chloe Campbell, Nick Midgley, Patrick Luyten, Epistemic trust: a comprehensive review of empirical insights and implications for developmental psychopathology , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 26 No. 3 (2023)
- Valeria Condino, Annalisa Tanzilli, Anna Maria Speranza, Vittorio Lingiardi, Therapeutic interventions in intimate partner violence: an overview , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 19 No. 2 (2016)
- Salvatore Gullo, Gianluca Lo Coco, Carla Di Fratello, Francesca Giannone, Giuseppe Mannino, Gary Burlingame, Group climate, cohesion and curative climate. A study on the common factors in group process and their relation with members attachment dimensions , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 18 No. 1 (2015)
- Marco Tonti, Omar C.G. Gelo, Rate of speech and emotional-cognitive regulation in the psychotherapeutic process: a pilot study , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 19 No. 2 (2016)
- Gianluca Cruciani, Marianna Liotti, Vittorio Lingiardi, Motivations to become psychotherapists: beyond the concept of the wounded healer , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 27 No. 2 (2024)
- Fabienne Gutjahr, Cord Benecke, Crying in psychotherapy: an exploratory mixed-methods study on forms of emotional crying and associated therapeutic interventions , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 27 No. 1 (2024)
- Nina Jakhelln Laugen, Torun Grøtte, Truls Ryum, Patrick A. Vogel, Heidi Brattland, Katrine Høyer Holgersen, Something has sort of opened up for me: psychology students’ reflections after participating in an apprenticeship training model , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 27 No. 2 (2024)
- Guillermo de la Parra, Paula Dagnino, Camila Valdés, Mariane Krause, Beyond self-criticism and dependency: structural functioning of depressive patients and its treatment , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 20 No. 1 (2017)
- Helena Carvalho, Gil Nata, Paula Mena Matos, How secure is the secure base? Romantic attachment, emotion regulation, and psychotherapists’ role as secure base figures , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 27 No. 1 (2024)
<< < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
