Cited by 153Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsDigital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Feedback-informed treatment versus usual psychological treatment for depression and anxiety: a multisite, open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Delgadillo, Jaime, de Jong, Kim, Lucock, Mike, Lutz, Wolfgang, Rubel, Julian, Gilbody, Simon, Ali, Shehzad, Aguirre, Elisa +7 more·2018·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Previous research suggests that the use of outcome feedback technology can enable psychological therapists to identify and resolve obstacles to clinical improvement. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of an outcome feedback quality assurance system applied in stepped care psychological services.Methods This multisite, open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial was done at eight National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, involving therapists who were qualified to deliver evidence-based low-intensity or high-intensity psychological interventions. Adult patients (18 years or older) who accessed individual therapy with participating therapists were eligible for inclusion, except patients who accessed group therapies and those who attended less than two individual therapy sessions. Therapists were randomly assigned (1:1) to an outcome feedback intervention group or a treatment-as-usual control group by use of a computer-generated randomisation algorithm. The allocation of patients to therapists was quasi-random, whereby patients on waiting lists were allocated sequentially on the basis of therapist availability. All patients received low-intensity (less than eight sessions) or high-intensity (up to 20 sessions) psychological therapies for the duration of the 1-year study period. An automated computer algorithm alerted therapists in the outcome feedback group to patients who were not on track, and primed them to review these patients in clinical supervision. The primary outcome was symptom severity on validated depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7]) measures after treatment of varying durations, which were compared between groups with multilevel modelling, controlling for cluster (therapist) effects. We used an intention-to-treat approach. This trial was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN12459454.Findings In total, 79 therapists were recruited to the study between Jan 8, 2016, and July 15, 2016, but two did not participate. Of these participants, 39 (51%) were randomly assigned to the outcome feedback group and 38 (49%) to the control group. Overall, 2233 patients were included in the trial (1176 [53%] were treated by therapists in the outcome feedback group, and 1057 [47%] by therapists in the control group). Patients classified as not on track had less severe symptoms after treatment if they were allocated to the outcome feedback group than those in the control group (PHQ-9 d=0·23, B=-1·03 [95% CI -1·84 to -0·23], p=0·012; GAD-7 d=0·19, B=-0·85 [-1·56 to -0·14], p=0·019).Interpretation Supplementing psychological therapy with low-cost feedback technology can reduce symptom severity in patients at risk of poor response to treatment. This evidence supports the implementation of outcome feedback in stepped care psychological services.Funding English NHS and Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30162-7

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Castonguay LG, Barkham M, Lutz W, McAleavey AA. Practice-oriented research: approaches and applications. In Lambert MJ, ed. Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, 6th edn. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, 2013.
  2. Baldwin SA, Imel ZE. Therapist effects: findings and methods. In Lambert MJ, ed. Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, 6th edn. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Delgadillo, J., de Jong, K., Lucock, M., Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Gilbody, S., Ali, S., Aguirre, E., Appleton, M., Nevin, J., O'Hayon, H., Patel, U., Sainty, A., Spencer, P., & McMillan, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Huddersfield (GB)
  • Universität Trier (DE)
  • University of York (GB)
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Whittington Health NHS Trust (GB)
  • Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Delgadillo, Jaime
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
564-572
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809000673
Cited by
152
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 3
FWCI
18.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
outcome feedback, feedback-informed treatment, depression, anxiety, stepped care, psychotherapy, clinical supervision, low-intensity psychological interventions, symptom severity, treatment progress monitoring, automated alerts, individual psychotherapy, waiting lists, NHS mental health services, intention-to-treat analysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Depressive Disorder, England, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, State Medicine, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review