Assessing Patient Progress in Psychological Therapy Through Feedback in Supervision: the MeMOS* Randomized Controlled Trial (*Measuring and Monitoring clinical Outcomes in Supervision: MeMOS)

Abstract

Background: Psychological therapy services are often required to demonstrate their effectiveness and are

Empirical research in clinical supervision: a systematic review and suggestions for future studies

“…Regarding the frequency of supervision sessions, most studies reported weekly sessions [31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41, 42], and the total number varied considerably from 3 [35] to 78 sessions [31]. Three studies did not describe the supervision frequency [33, 36, 45], and one singled out one supervision session only [44] (recommendation to “Describe how the study is conducted”).…”

“…In addition to cohort designs [31, 44], cross-sectional designs were common [35–37, 45, 48, 49]. Only in three publications was follow-up data collected [33, 38, 42]. Most studies covering satisfaction with supervision included one assessment time, usually post-intervention [34, 35, 37, 39, 48, 49].…”

“…in SV groups sign. More satisfied and less dropout than in control group–Davidson (2017) [33]ClusterRCTFB to SVee and SVor on Pat outcome, alerts as to worsening (16)FB to SVee on Pat outcome, no alert (25)Q13Pat. in control group sign.…”

“…The assessments of the methodological quality are presented in Table 2. The total methodological quality score was between 9 and 11 in six publications [32, 38, 41–43, 46, 49], between 12 and 13 in eight publications (score of 12–12 [31, 33–36, 45, 49];), and between 14 and 15 in five of the 19 publications [37, 39, 40, 44, 47], with a lower score indicating a lower risk of a threat to the methodological quality. On an item level, most problems referred to the selection of participants, the control of confounders, and other bias such as allegiance bias (Fig.…”

“…Further, the therapeutic relationship [31, 32, 43–45], and therapeutic competence seem to benefit from supervision [37, 38, 40, 42, 43]. On the other hand, non-significant findings [34, 38], small effects [31, 44, 45] and relevant alternative explanations [32, 33, 43, 46] hamper proper conclusions (see Fig. 3).…”