Feedback in group psychotherapy for eating disorders: A randomized clinical trial.

Abstract

Feedback neither increased attendance nor improved outcomes for outpatients in group psychotherapy for eating disorders. The results are discussed from different perspectives. (PsycINFO Database Record

Feedback in Couple and Family Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Fourth, there is a concern that in the majority of ROM studies that found ROM superior to TAU the outcome measure applied in the study typically was identical with the feedback instrument used (e.g., the ORS within PCOMS, or the OQ‐45 in the OQ‐45 studies). In contrast, studies using independent outcome measures revealed no difference between conditions (Davidsen et al, ; Rise, Eriksen, Grimstad, & Steinsbekk, ; Van Oenen et al, ).…”

“…More specifically, Janse deJong, Van Dijk, Hutschemaekers, and Verbraak () found that ROM was not more beneficial for 1,006 outpatients than TAU in general with the exception of those suffering from mood disorders who benefited more from ROM. In a Danish study of 159 clients suffering from eating disorder, there was no significant difference in therapy outcomes between ROM and TAU conditions (Davidsen et al, ). Indeed, in a study of patients with personality disorders, ROM was associated with deterioration for patients with cluster B and PD‐NOS diagnoses (de Jong, Segaar, Ingenhoven, Busschbach, & Timman, ).…”

The effect of using the Partners for Change Outcome Management System as feedback tool in psychotherapy—A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Completer data were used in the meta-analyses because an intention to treat analysis (ITT) was only reported in three primary studies (Davidsen et al, 2017;Rise et al, 2016;van Oenen et al, 2016).…”

“…Two studies used the ORS without the SRS in the PCOMS condition (Murphy et al, 2012;Schuman, Slone, Reese, & Duncan, 2015). Only five studies (Davidsen et al, 2017;Janse et al, 2017;Murphy et al, 2012;Reese et al, 2009b;She et al, 2018) reported the number of NOT clients with a study mean of 44.5% (range 25.7% to 81.3%) for the PCOMS condition and of 52.4% (range 37.9% to 78.5%) for the control condition. None of the studies measured observer-rated compliance with the PCOMS protocol, but four studies used a self-report treatment fidelity checklist about how the PCOMS was used (Davidsen et al, 2017;Kellybrew-Miller, 2015;Lester, 2012;van Oenen et al, 2016).…”

“…The Outcome Questionnaire 45 (OQ-45; Lambert et al, 2004) has been widely used and researched in the USA (Lambert et al, 2002), in the Netherlands ( de Jong, van Sluis, Nugter, Heiser, & Spinhoven, 2012), as well as in Norway (Amble, Gude, Stubdal, Andersen, & Wampold, 2015). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS; Miller & Duncan, 2004) is also widely researched and used, both in the USA (e.g., Reese, Norsworthy, & Rowlands, 2009a, 2009b, Norway (e.g., Anker, Duncan, & Sparks, 2009), the Netherlands (e.g., Janse, de Jong, van Dijk, Hutschemaekers, & Verbraak, 2017), Ireland (Murphy, Rashleigh, & Timulak, 2012), Australia (Hansen, Howe, Sutton, & Ronan, 2015), China (She et al, 2018), and Denmark (Davidsen et al, 2017). In February 2018, a total of 92 partners or certificated PCOMS trainers from 14 different countries were registered at the homepage of the S. D. Miller initiated project the "International Center for Clinical Excellence" (2018) or at the homepage of the B. L. Duncan launched "Heart and Soul of Change Project" (2018).…”