Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) and Feedback: Research Review and Recommendations

29Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To provide a research review of the components and outcomes of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and recommendations for research and therapeutic practice. Method: A narrative review of the three phases of ROM–data collection, feeding back data, and adapting therapy–and an overview of patient outcomes from 11 meta-analytic studies. Results: Patients support ROM when its purpose is clear and integrated within therapy. Greater frequency of data collection is more important for shorter-term therapies, and use of graphs, greater specificity of feedback, and alerts are helpful. Overall effects on patient outcomes are statistically significant (g ≈ 0.15) and increase when clinical support tools (CSTs) are used for not-on-track cases (g ≈ 0.36–0.53). Effects are additive to standard effects of psychological therapies. Organizational, personnel, and resource issues remain the greatest obstacles to the successful adoption of ROM. Conclusion: ROM offers a low-cost method for enhancing patient outcomes, on average resulting in an ≈ 8% advantage (success rate difference; SRD) over standard care. CSTs are particularly effective for not-on-track patients (SRD between ≈ 20% and 29%), but ROM does not work for all patients and successful implementation is a major challenge, along with securing appropriate cultural adaptations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barkham, M., De Jong, K., Delgadillo, J., & Lutz, W. (2023). Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) and Feedback: Research Review and Recommendations. Psychotherapy Research, 33(7), 841–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2023.2181114

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free