Disclosures and AcknowledgementsThis study was funded by a contestable grant from the Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences at Auckland University of Technology. Note that various terms are used to describe people receiving mental health services, including patients, clients, consumers, and service users (96). In order to be consistent with the established term PROM, we will occasionally refer to this group as patients, while acknowledging the sensitivity of this term, particularly to those who regard themselves as service users in recovery. Methods: Iterative scoping searches of the literature identified articles reporting on the use of PROM feedback in mental health settings, which were then categorized to develop a typology along a dimension of intensity of PROM feedback, ranging from no feedback to patient and clinician to clinician-patient discussion that followed a formalized structure.
Results:Of the 172 studies that were identified, 27 were grouped into five categories, ranging from no PROMs feedback to either clinician or patient to studies in which a formalized structure was available by which PROM feedback could be discussed between clinician and patient. Of the 11 studies in the category with formalized feedback, nine studies reported some significant effects of feedback compared to a control condition, and two reported partial effects.
Conclusions:The proposed procedural typology helps explain the diversity of results from studies reporting on the effects of PROM feedback, by highlighting that PROM feedback appears to be more effective when integrated in a formalized and structured manner. Future work is required to isolate these effects from common procedural correlates, such as monitoring of therapeutic alliance.2