Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 204–211 | Cite as

Methods of Delivering Progress Feedback to Optimise Patient Outcomes: The Value of Expected Treatment Trajectories

  • Geoffrey R. Hooke
  • Adelln A. H. Sng
  • Nadia K. Cunningham
  • Andrew C. Page
Original Article


Whilst feedback is demonstrated to improve therapy outcomes, little attention has been given to the relative benefits of the form in which feedback is given. The present study aimed to compare patients’ perceptions of feedback graphs with and without expected treatment response trajectories. In a counter-balanced design, patients in 2-week CBT programs were shown feedback graphs with and without expected symptom trajectories; and were asked to complete questionnaire regarding the appeal after viewing the first graphs. Patients (n = 42) viewed feedback graphs and preferred those with trajectories present and perceived the additional detail helpful to both themselves and their therapists. The present findings support the appeal for and potential usefulness of richer feedback for facilitating discussion and positive outcomes in therapy.


Patient Routine Outcomes Measurement Outcomes monitoring Outcome management Feedback, cognitive behavior therapy 



The researchers acknowledge the support of Moira Munro.


The research was funded in part by the Australian Research Council grant LP150100503, received by Andrew C. Page and Geoffrey R. Hooke.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Geoffrey R. Hooke, Adelln A. H. Sng, Nadia K. Cunningham and Andrew C. Page declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Bar-Kalifa, E., Atzil-Slonim, D., Rafaeli, E., Peri, T., Rubel, J., & Lutz, W. (2016). Therapist-client agreement in assessments of clients’ functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(12), 1127–1134. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bech, P., Gudex, C., & Johansen, K. S. (1996). The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: Validation in diabetes. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 183–190. doi: 10.1159/000289073.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bickman, L., Kelley, S. D., Breda, C., de Andrade, A. R., & Riemer, M. (2011). Effects of routine feedback to clinicians on mental health outcomes of youths: Results of a randomized trial. Psychiatric Services, 62(12), 1423–1429. doi: 10.1176/ Scholar
  4. Delgadillo, J., Moreea, O., & Lutz, W. (2016). Different people respond differently to therapy: A demonstration using patient profiling and risk stratification. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 79, 15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2016.02.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyer, K., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2014). Development and psychometrics of the five item daily index in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 152–154, 409–415. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.10.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyer, K., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2016). Effects of providing domain specific progress monitoring and feedback to therapists and patients on outcome. Psychotherapy Research, 26(3), 297–306. doi: 10.1080/10503307.2014.983207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hannan, C., Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Nielsen, S. L., Smart, D. W., Shimokawa, K., & Sutton, S. W. (2005). A Lab Test and Algorithms for Identifying Clients at Risk for Treatment Failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 155–163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Howard, K. I., Moras, K., Brill, P. L., Martinovich, Z., & Lutz, W. (1996). Evaluation of psychotherapy efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. American Psychologist, 51, 1059–1064. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.51.10.1059.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kashyap, S., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2015). Identifying risk of deliberate self-harm through longitudinal monitoring of psychological distress in an inpatient psychiatric population. BMC Psychiatry, 15. doi: 10.1186/s12888-015-0464-3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kendrick, T., El-Gohary, M., Stuart, B., Gilbody, S., Churchill, R., Aiken, L., ... Moore, M (2016). Routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for improving treatment of common mental health disorders in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7, CD011119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambert, M. J., & Finch, A. E. (1999). The outcome questionnaire. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd edn., pp. 831–869). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., & Finch, A. E. (2001). Patient-focused research: Using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(2), 159–172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Slade, K. L., Whipple, J. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2005). Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients’ progress: Clinical results and practice suggestions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 165–174. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lutz, W. (2003). Efficacy, effectiveness, and expected treatment response in psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(7), 745–750.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lutz, W., Leach, C., Barkham, M., Lucock, M., Stiles, W. B., Evans, C., ... Iveson, S (2005). Predicting change for individual psychotherapy clients on the basis of their nearest neighbors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 904–913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Newnham, E. A., Doyle, E. L., Sng, A. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2012). Improving clinical outcomes in psychiatric care with touch-screen technology. Psychological Services, 9(2), 221–223. doi: 10.1037/a0026143.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Newnham, E. A., Harwood, K. E., & Page, A. C. (2007). Evaluating the clinical significance of responses by psychiatric inpatients to the mental health subscales of the SF-36. Journal of Affective Disorders, 98(1–2), 91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2006.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Newnham, E. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2010a). Monitoring treatment response and outcomes using the World Health Organization’s Wellbeing Index in psychiatric care. Journal of Affective Disorders, 122(1–2), 133–138. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Newnham, E. A., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2010b). Progress monitoring and feedback in psychiatric care reduces depressive symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 127(1–3), 139–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2010.05.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Newnham, E. A., & Page, A. C. (2010). Bridging the gap between best evidence and best practice in mental health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(1), 127–142. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Page, A. C., Cunningham, N. K., & Hooke, G. R. (2016). Using daily monitoring of psychiatric symptoms to evaluate hospital length of stay. British Journal of Psychiatry Open, 2(6), 341–345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Page, A. C., Hooke, G. R., & Rampono, J. (2005). A methodology for timing reviews of inpatient hospital stay. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(3), 198–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Page, A. C., & Stritzke, W. G. K. (2014). Clinical psychology for trainees: Foundations of science-informed practice (2nd edn.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Restifo, E., Kashyap, S., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2015). Daily monitoring of temporal trajectories of suicidal ideation predict self-injury: a novel application of patient progress monitoring. Psychother Research, doi: 10.1080/10503307.2015.1006707.Google Scholar
  26. Ronk, F. R., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2012). How consistent are clinical significance classifications when calculation methods and outcome measures differ? Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 19(2), 167–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2012.01281.x.Google Scholar
  27. Ronk, F. R., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2016). Validity of clinically significant change classifications yielded by Jacobson-Truax and Hageman-Arrindell methods. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0895-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ronk, F. R., Korman, J. R., Hooke, G. R., & Page, A. C. (2013). Assessing clinical significance of treatment outcomes using the DASS-21. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1103–1110. doi: 10.1037/a0033100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rubel, J., Lutz, W., Kopta, S. M., Kock, K., Minami, T., Zimmermann, D., & Saunders, S. M. (2015). Defining early positive response to psychotherapy: An empirical comparison between clinically significant change criteria and growth mixture modeling. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 478–488. doi: 10.1037/pas0000060.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schulte, D., & Eifert, G. H. (2002). What to do when manuals fail? The dual model of psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(3), 312–328.Google Scholar
  31. Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. W. (2010). Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: Meta-analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 298–311. doi: 10.1037/a0019247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perth ClinicWest PerthAustralia
  2. 2.School of Psychological ScienceThe University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations