Progress-monitoring (PM) measures, which help ensure evidence-based practice, allow the tracking of client progress in psychotherapy treatment and even predict which clients will have negative outcomes. However, the majority of psychologists in Canada still do not use these measures in clinical practice. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators to the use of PM measures in psychotherapy among psychologists in Canada. Participants included 533 licensed psychologists from across Canada who responded to an online survey regarding the barriers and facilitators involved in using PM measures in clinical practice. Participants self-identified as either users, nonusers, or previous users of PM measures. The results of the present study indicate that the top-4 barriers to using PM measures were limited knowledge, limitations in training, burden on clients, and concerns regarding additional work and time. These barriers were similar across users, nonusers, and previous users. The results suggest that offering training in different formats, over extended periods of time, and from colleague to colleague may be the most effective approach to overcoming these barriers. Other strategies that may help address the identified barriers and implications for practicing clinicians and the field of psychology are discussed. Public Significance StatementTracking client progress in psychotherapy helps inform clinicians about whether therapy is helping clients. Yet many clinicians are not using these measures in practice. This study examined the factors that impede clinicians from applying these measures in their practice.

Rationale, aims, and objectives Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become a common feature in the health and social care fields, as they promote evidence‐based practice and aim to improve quality of care and patient outcome. However, the benefits of the recommendations reported in CPGs are only as good as the quality of the CPGs themselves. Indeed, rigorous development and strategies for reporting are significant precursors to successful implementation of the recommendations that are proposed. Unfortunately, research has demonstrated that there is much variability in their level of quality. Furthermore, the quality of many CPGs has yet to be examined. The aim of the present study was to assess the quality of seven CPGs from four Quebec professional regulatory bodies pertaining to clinical evaluations in the fields of medicine, psychoeducation, psychotherapy, and social work. Methods The seven Quebec CPGs were assessed by four trained appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II guideline evaluation tool. Results Results suggest that while some quality criteria were met, most were not, denoting that these CPGs are of sub‐optimal quality. Conclusion Our findings highlight that there is still a lot to be done in order to improve the rigour and transparency with which scientific evidence is assessed and applied when developing CPGs. Impacts regarding the implementation of these CPGs are discussed in light of their use in clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract