Process and Implementation Elements of Measurement Feedback Systems: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Abstract Measurement feedback systems (MFS) can help guide treatment and improve clinical outcomes. Studies of MFS are heterogeneous both in execution and results, and the effects of MFS seem restricted by limited attention to process and implementation elements and by limited adoption by health professionals. The current systematic review mapped the use of process and implementation elements in MFS studies. An overview of therapists’ use of and attitudes toward MFS is provided. Three-level meta-analyses were used to test theoretically informed process and implementation elements as moderators of the effects of MFS. Hypotheses and general propositions from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT) were used to organize the elements of the studies and were used as moderator variables. Previous studies on MFS interventions have had a limited focus on implementation efforts and process elements that may increase the effects of MFS and their use among therapists. Efforts have sparsely been made to reduce barriers to MFS use, and several studies have reported limited engagement with MFS among therapists. Therapists’ attitudes toward MFS, feedback, or standardized measures were heterogeneously reported, making data synthesis challenging. Identified process and implementation elements were not significantly associated with effect sizes in the studies and the results did not support the propositions of CP-FIT. The lack of statistically significant associations may be due to limited reporting of details about process and implementation aspects. More research designed to test hypotheses regarding process and implementation elements is needed to improve the use and effects of MFS. Future studies should aspire to report findings in a manner that allows for an understanding of the implementation process and therapists’ adoption of these systems.