4.3 Article

The Effectiveness of Clinician Feedback in the Treatment of Depression in the Community Mental Health System

Journal

JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 83, Issue 4, Pages 748-759

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0039302

Keywords

feedback; psychotherapy; community mental health; depression

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health [R34MH085841]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We describe the development and evaluation of a clinician feedback intervention for use in community mental health settings. The Community Clinician Feedback System (CCFS) was developed in collaboration with a community partner to meet the needs of providers working in such community settings. Method: The CCFS consists of weekly performance feedback to clinicians, as well as a clinical feedback report that assists clinicians with patients who are not progressing as expected. Patients in the randomized sample (N = 100) were predominantly female African Americans, with a mean age of 39 years. Results: Satisfaction ratings of the CCFS indicate that the system was widely accepted by clinicians and patients. A hierarchical linear models (HLM) analysis comparing rates of change across conditions controlling for baseline gender, age, and racial group indicated a moderate effect in favor of the feedback condition for symptom improvement, t(94) = 2.41, p = .017, d = .50. Thirty-six percent of feedback patients compared with only 13% of patients in the no-feedback condition demonstrated clinically significant change across treatment, chi(2)(1) = 6.13, p = .013. Conclusions: These results indicate that our CCFS is acceptable to providers and patients of mental health services and has the potential to improve the effectiveness of services for clinically meaningful depression in the community mental health setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available