Improving the efficiency of psychological treatment using outcome feedback technology

Jaime Delgadillo, Karen Jane Overend, Mike Lucock, M Groom, N Kirby, Dean McMillan, Simon Gilbody, W Lutz, J Rubel, K de Jong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Aims: This study evaluated the impact of applying computerised outcome feedback (OF) technology in a stepped care psychological service offering low and high intensity therapies for depression and anxiety. Methods: A group of therapists were trained to use OF based on routine outcome monitoring using depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) measures. Therapists regularly reviewed expected treatment response graphs with patients and discussed cases that were “not on track” in clinical supervision. Clinical outcomes data were collected for all patients treated by this group (N = 594), six months before (controls = 349) and six months after the OF training (OF cases = 245). Symptom reductions in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 were compared between controls and OF cases using longitudinal multilevel modelling. Treatment duration and costs were compared using MANOVA. Qualitative interviews with therapists (N = 15) and patients (N = 6) were interpreted using thematic analysis. Results: OF technology was generally acceptable and feasible to integrate in routine practice. No significant between-group differences were found in post-treatment PHQ-9 or GAD-7 measures. However, OF cases had significantly lower average duration and cost of treatment compared to controls. Conclusions: After adopting OF into their practice, this group of therapists attained similar clinical outcomes but within a shorter space of time and at a reduced average cost per treatment episode. We conclude that OF can improve the efficiency of stepped care. Key words: outcome feedback; stepped care; depression; anxiety; IAPT
Original languageEnglish
JournalBehaviour research and therapy
Early online date28 Sep 2017
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 Sep 2017

Bibliographical note

This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy.

Cite this