Evidence base


National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, 2012, Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): International Center for Clinical Excellence, Maryland: SAMHSA

National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, 2012, Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): International Center for Clinical Excellence, Maryland: SAMHSA

NREPP is a searchable online registry of more than 300 interventions supporting mental health promotion, substance abuse prevention, and mental health and substance abuse treatment, connecting members of the public to intervention developers so they can learn how to implement these approaches in their communities.

Access full text

Campbell, A., Hemsley, S. (2009) ‘Outcome Rating Scale and Session Rating Scale in psychological practice: Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures, Clinical Psychologist,  13(1):1–9

Campbell, A., Hemsley, S. (2009) ‘Outcome Rating Scale and Session Rating Scale in psychological practice: Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures, Clinical Psychologist, 13(1):1–9

The validity and reliability of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and the Session Rating Scale (SRS) were evaluated against existing longer measures, including the Outcome Questionnaire-45, Working Alliance Inventory, depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21, Quality of Life Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and General Self-efficacy Scale. The measures were administered to patients referred for psychological services to a rural primary health-care service. Participants were recruited from both current and new patients of psychologists providing the service. Both the ORS and SRS demonstrated good reliability and concurrent validity with their longer alternatives. The ORS also evidenced significant correlations with measures of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and quality of life. The ORS and SRS offer benefits such as cost-effectiveness, brevity, simple administration, and easy interpretation of results in the measurement of clinical outcomes when compared to their longer counterparts. These results provide clear support for the adoption of brief outcome assessment measures in psychological practice.

Access full text

Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G.S. (2005) ‘The partners for change outcome management system’, Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 61(2): 199-208

Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G.S. (2005) ‘The partners for change outcome management system’, Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 61(2): 199-208

A number of systems provide feedback regarding client progress and experience of the therapeutic alliance to clinicians. Available evidence indicates that access to such data improves retention and outcome for clients most at risk for treatment failure. Over the last several years, the team at the Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change has worked to develop an outcome management system that not only provides valid and reliable feedback, but also is as user-friendly as possible for therapists and consumers. In this article, we describe the system and summarize current research findings.

Access full text

Knaup, C., Koesters, M., Schoefer, D., Becker, T. and Puschner, B. (2009) ‘Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis, ‘ British Journal of Psychiatry, 195: 15-22

Knaup, C., Koesters, M., Schoefer, D., Becker, T. and Puschner, B. (2009) ‘Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: meta-analysis, ‘ British Journal of Psychiatry, 195: 15-22

Background: Feedback of treatment outcome during the course of therapy (outcome management) is increasingly considered to be beneficial for improving the quality of mental healthcare. Aims: To review the impact of feedback of outcome to practitioners and/or patients in specialist mental health services. Method: A systematic search and meta-analysis of controlled trials using outcome management in mental health services published in English or German language. Results: Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. Feeding back outcome showed a small, but significant (d = 0.10; 95% CI 0.01–0.19) positive short-term effect on the mental health of individuals that did not prevail in the long run. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences regarding feedback modalities. Outcome management did not contribute to a reduction of treatment duration. Conclusions: Evidence on the effects of outcome management in mental healthcare is promising. More targeted research is needed in order to identify the effective ingredients of outcome feedback and to assess its cost-effectiveness.

Access full text

Miller, S., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sorrel, R. and Chalk M. (2006) ‘Using Formal Client Feedback to Improve Retention and Outcome: Making Ongoing, Real-time Assessment Feasible’, Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1):5-22

Miller, S., Duncan, B., Brown, J., Sorrel, R. and Chalk M. (2006) ‘Using Formal Client Feedback to Improve Retention and Outcome: Making Ongoing, Real-time Assessment Feasible’, Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1):5-22

Research has found that client change occurs earlier rather than later in the treatment process, and that the client’s subject experience of meaningful change in the first few sessions is critical. If improvement in the client’s subject sense of well-being does not occur in the first few sessions then the likelihood of a positive outcome significantly decreases. Recent studies have found that there are significant improvements in both retention and outcome when therapists receive formal, realtime feedback from clients regarding the process and outcome of therapy. However, the most used instruments in these feedback studies are long and take up valuable therapy time to complete. It has been found that most therapists are not likely to use any feedback instruments if it takes more than five minutes to complete, score and interpret. This article reports the results of an evaluation of the use of two very brief instruments for monitoring the process and outcome of therapy, the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and the Session Rating Scale (SRS), in a study involving 75 therapists and 6,424 clients over a two year period. These two instruments were found to be valid and reliable and had a high use-rate among the therapists. The findings are discussed in light of the current emphasis on evidence-based practice.

Access full text