Posted by:Barry McInnes

8 replies on “Progress feedback: How much difference does it make?

  1. Can I suggest that you do NOT use acronyms and spell out what were not particularly long full names? I found I was constantly going backwards and forwards to work out what you were saying.

    1. I have to agree, I was quite confused near the end. If this could be changed I would definitely re-read and try to understand the takeaway points.

  2. Kim deJong is one of the most balanced and systematic reviewers in this meta-analytic literature. As a long-time user of the OQ system, I have followed with interest her evaluations of PROMS over the years. Her reviews have served as a benchmark to evaluate clinical efficacy of the various systems.
    Given your summary of her results above , May I ask if you concur with her inference ( page 14?)
    “ . It appears that not all feedback systems are equally effective in all patients. Studies using PCOMS have larger effect sizes in the full sample, but have negligible effect sizes in the NOT subgroup. For this meta-analysis, Duncan and Reese conducted new analyses on the NOT subgroup for six studies using PCOMS. Consequently, the number of studies with NOT cases using PCOMS is higher in our meta-analysis than in previous ones, which may dilute the effect in NOT cases. The OQ System seems more effective in NOT cases, especially when it is used in combination with CSTs, but seems to be doing less well in the full sample. Thus, PCOMS seems to be more effective in OT cases, whereas the OQ System works better in NOT cases. This is in line with how these feedback systems have been
    designed. The OQ System aims to give feedback signals for patients that did not progress well and strives to improve treatment outcomes for these patients (Lambert, 2007), whereas PCOMS has been constructed to be completed and discussed in session, thereby promoting better communication between patient and therapist”

    1. Hi David and thanks for your comments. Broadly speaking, assuming that I’ve understood correctly, her inference would seem to make sense. It makes sense to me that a system which promotes a dialogue between clients and therapists for all cases, whether on track or not, would have the potential to have a greater impact across the board then one just focusing on clients that are not on track.

      So, even for clients that are on track, those routine conversations might have the effect of making the intervention even more effective than it would have been without, if that makes sense? I hope that’s answered your question?

      1. Question answered. Thank you for your considered response – and for keeping this site current – really helps keep those outside of NHS informed on lessons learned in optimization through measurement and feedback.
        Gotta love that dashboard!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.