The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Routine outcome monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory
Abstract
Objectives Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) is an important quality tool for measuring outcome of treatment in health care. The objective of this article is to summarize the evidence base that supports the provision of feedback on ROM results to (mental) health care professionals and patients. Also, some relevant theoretical aspects are considered. Methods Literature study (Pubmed, Medline, PsychINFO, Embase Psychiatry, 1975–2009) concerning randomized controlled trials (RTC's) of ROM and feedback on physical or mental health status of patients of all ages. Main search terms were routine outcome monitoring/measurement, feedback, health status measurement, patient reported outcome measures. Results Included were 52 RCT's concerning ROM and feedback with adult or older patients: of these seven RCT's were exclusively focused on physical health and 45 RCT's (also) on the mental health of the patient, although not always in a mental health care setting or as primary outcome measure. There appears to be a positive impact of ROM on diagnosis and monitoring of treatment, and on communication between patient and therapist. Other results were less clear. There were no published RCT's on this topic with children or adolescents. Conclusions ROM appears especially effective for the monitoring of patients who are not doing well in therapy. Further research into this topic and the clinical‐and cost‐effectiveness of ROM is recommended, especially in mental health care for both adults and children. Also, more theory‐driven research is needed with relevant conceptualizations such as Feedback Intervention Theory, Therapeutic Assessment.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.06.078 · Cited by 1,382
Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D. V., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.3027 · Cited by 1,011
Fitzpatrick, Shortall, Sculpher, Murray, Morris, Lodge, Dawson, Carr, Britton, & Briggs (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2200 · Cited by 969
Valderas, J. M., Kotzeva, A., Espallargues, M., Guyatt, G., Ferrans, C. E., Halyard, M. Y., Revicki, D. A., Symonds, T., Parada, A., & Alonso, J. (2008) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0 · Cited by 775
Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? A meta-analysis
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003) · Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice · doi:10.1093/clipsy.bpg025 · Cited by 608
Impact of patient‐reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review
Marshall, S., Haywood, K., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x · Cited by 602
Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.022 · Cited by 436
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Smart, D. W., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2001) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/713663852 · Cited by 432
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Goldsmith G., 1989, Assessing the functional status of older people with chronic illness, Family Medicine, 21, 39
- 10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.59 · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.59 · Paper page
- 10.1097/00005053-194911010-00005 · doi:10.1097/00005053-194911010-00005
- Klopfer B., 1954, Developments in the Rorschach Technique: Vol. 1. Technique and Theory
Cited by
Mental Health Smartphone Apps: Review and Evidence-Based Recommendations for Future Developments
Bakker, D., Kazantzis, N., Rickwood, D., & Rickard, N. (2016) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/mental.4984 · Cited by 886
de Jong, K., Conijn, J. M., Gallagher, R. A. V., Reshetnikova, A. S., Heij, M., & Lutz, M. C. (2021) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102002 · Cited by 417
Delgadillo, J., de Jong, K., Lucock, M., Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Gilbody, S., Ali, S., Aguirre, E., Appleton, M., Nevin, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30162-7 · Cited by 152
Simon, W., Lambert, M. J., Harris, M. W., Busath, G., & Vazquez, A. (2012) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2012.698918 · Cited by 137
van Sonsbeek, M. A., Hutschemaekers, G. G., Veerman, J. W., & Tiemens, B. B. (2014) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-14-3 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Carlier, I. V. E., Meuldijk, D., Van Vliet, I. M., Van Fenema, E., Van der Wee, N. J. A., & Zitman, F. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-09-16
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 104-110
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W1897101743
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 76
- FWCI
- 6.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Routine outcome monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01543.x
- The paper
- Carlier, I. V. E., Meuldijk, D., Van Vliet, I. M., Van Fenema, E., Van der Wee, N. J. A., & Zitman, F. G. (2012). Routine outcome monitoring and feedback on physical or mental health status: evidence and theory. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01543.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
